Thanks Elias.
I think this stuff should be addressed and I will attempt to do so in
the createdb script. IMO Derby is a key database for Apache, IBM and
Sun and we need to support it. I hope to get to it tomorrow, but
probably after I make the Roller 2.0 EA demo available.
- Dave
On Sep 1, 2005, at 4:36 PM, Elias Torres wrote:
Inspired by the message from Brent [1] and with the help of IBM
colleagues on the Derby end, we've seem to find some other things in
the script that could be improved so we can support Derby 10.1 as
well.
1. website table create an "extra" index on the primary key. This
gives a warning on both derby and db2, not sure what do the other
databases do in this case. Is it ok if we remove the extra index?
[[[
id varchar(48) not null primary key,
]]]
[[[
create index website_id_index on website(id);
]]]
2. I believe that the rag_group table adds a constraint the handle
column to be unique and also creates an index. Again, both derby and
db2 think it's redundant.
[[[
alter table rag_group add constraint rag_group_handle_uq unique (
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@ );
create index rag_group_handle on rag_group([EMAIL PROTECTED]@);
]]]
3. There's an inconsistency in a foreign key relationship and the
table definition of the webpage table. website.id is VARCHAR(48) and
webpage.websiteid is VARCHAR(255). Is this an oversight or can we
change websiteid in webpage to also be VARCHAR(48), this way Derby
won't give us an error.
from webpage table:
[[[
websiteid varchar(255) not null,
]]]
[[[
alter table webpage add constraint weblogpage_websiteid_fk
foreign key ( websiteid ) references website( id )
]]]
from website table:
[[[
id varchar(48) not null primary key,
]]]
Again, thanks for all your support and time with all these requests, I
know you are very busy doing the next release, especially Dave.
Elias
[1] http://tinyurl.com/doqut
