Re: Detached indices in 7.3

SaTriGuy wrote: . . . snip . . . > >After digging around in Lawson, we finally saw that it was > >using the "in dbspace" clause by default when it built indexes > >regardless of whether you used their configuration tables to "truely > >request" a detached index. I think they need to change their > >dictionary tool. I ended up dropping all indexes, and recreating them > >without the "in dbspace clause". > > I think this is simply a rumor. I just ran a quick test on 7.3 and my indexes > were attached. Also, if the indexes are detached, they should not take any > more space than they currently do, unless a rather large initial extent is > declared for the index. Thanks for the update; it's good to know that there are those out there on the leading edge who are looking out for those of us on the trailing edge. <G> The only issues I would have with Lawson would be: 1. Detached indices are now the 'standard'. 2. Tables with high number of updates/deletes would have a higher number of extents due to detached indices. Number 1 doesn't concern me. Number 2 seems to make sense. I guess I need to run some extra tests just to make sure. I'm just remembering Informix's recommendation to detaching indices / frag data only when necessary, not as the rule. John Carlson Informix DBA WH Smith, Inc.