Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> > Just a quick question, when a column of a table is defined to be a foreign
> > key, is it implicitly indexed, or does one still need to explicitly CREATE
> > INDEX?
>
> The foreign key columns are not currently impli
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Philip Warner wrote:
> PGSQL implements PK/FK & Unique constraints by using indexes (and rules) at
> the moment. There is no guarantee that this will always be the case - in
> fact, one path to rationalizing the constraints system is to implement most
> features as SQL CHECK c
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Just a quick question, when a column of a table is defined to be a foreign
> key, is it implicitly indexed, or does one still need to explicitly CREATE
> INDEX?
The foreign key columns are not currently implicitly indexed but you may
wish to
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Just a quick question, when a column of a table is defined to be a foreign
> key, is it implicitly indexed, or does one still need to explicitly CREATE
> INDEX?
I don't think you can actually declare the column in the table as a
foreign key.
At 11:01 5/02/01 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>Just a quick question, when a column of a table is defined to be a foreign
>key, is it implicitly indexed, or does one still need to explicitly CREATE
>INDEX?
The referenced columns must be either a PK or the set of columns in a
Unique const
Just a quick question, when a column of a table is defined to be a foreign
key, is it implicitly indexed, or does one still need to explicitly CREATE
INDEX?
Chris
--
Christopher Kings-Lynne
Family Health Network (ACN 089 639 243)
