I wonder whether I explained my question clearly in last post. I meant: If I use one index for two tables, is the index added in an incremental way for each new row in any of those two tables(as shown in my following example)?
For example: The definition of rowStatus: #define NOTEXIST 0 #define EXISTING 1 #define NEWROW 2 #define DELETEROW 3 [DHCP settings table] index poolName serverIp rowStatus 1 testPool x.x.x.x 1 2 testPool1 x.x.x.x 1 4 testPool2 x.x.x.x 1 [IP Range Table] as augment of entries in DHCP settings table index startIp endIp 3 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.2 5 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.3 <- newly added row Assume row 3 and 5 belong to testPool. Since we have only one index in two tables, do I need to synchronize the index value from the dhcpSettingsTable to ipRangeTable? How do I make table one know the newly added 5th row belongs to testPool. If I set the rowStatus of the 1st row to 3. Ideally, it should delete the 1st, 3rd, and 5th rows. How do I make this happen if two tables are implemented separately into two different modules? > The surprising thing is that you don't actually need > to worry about this when implementing the tables. > As long as the underlying data for the two tables is > consistent, you can implement the tables separately. > The underlying data is sufficient to form the linkage. Thanks, /Pan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-users mailing list [email protected] Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
