Re: Dangers of dropping foreign key constraints?

c-eriks@algonet.se wrote: > > In article <3a1a02d6$1@news.iprimus.com.au>, > "Andrew Hamm" <ahamm@sanderson.net.au> wrote: > > Emm, I think you may be misinterpreting the book here. You can only > > have ONE cluster index. That's the rule. Other indexes are allowed to > > exist but as you can probably understand if you understand the > > mechanics, only index may be clustered. > > > > OK! I managed to do a "ALTER INDEX index-name TO CLUSTER" without > dropping any indexes. I didn't get the result I wanted though. The > number of extents for the table wasn't reduced. I have achieved that > when only having one index on the table and doing a "ALTER INDEX ...". > This all aims at reducing the number of table extents in a production > environment with users connected to the database. Did you change your NEXT EXTENT size first? Is there enough contiguous space in the chunks where the table resides? Cheers, -- Mark. +----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Mark D. Stock mailto:mdstock@mydas.freeserve.co.uk |//////// /| | http://www.informix.com http://www.informixhandbook.com |///// / //| | http://www.iiug.org +-----------------------------------+//// / ///| | |This email will self-destruct in |/// / ////| | |10 sec. If you received this email |// / /////| | |in error, sorry about the mess. |/ ////////| +----------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+