Re: SMI table feature request

On Oct 4, 12:59pm, Michael Reed - Radiix wrote: } Subject: SMI table feature request } } I have found some deficiencies in the SMI tables for } which I have called in feature requests. I will summarize them } below. If you agree that these features are needed/useful, } I urge everyone to either call Informix giving verbal support } or send them email about it at tsmail@informix.com (technical } support address). } } The more people requesting these, the more attention they will } get. } } 1. Request # 3926 } The sysextents table needs to have at least a flag indicating } I for infex or T for table. When trying to use this table } to report on extents, the column called "tabname" may } also contain index names. When the index name is the same } as a table, you cannot tell which extents belong to the } table and which extents belong to the index. } Yea, I know I can get this from oncheck but I should also } be able to get it from these great SMI tables. Usefull. } 2. Request # 3713 } Allow the leading column of a composite index to be } used for referential integrity. Right now, a separate } index is required only on that column. This is a bit } redundant. Essential!! I requested this at least 3 years ago when 5.00 first came out with referential integrity!! This is extremely costly in terms of performance as not only does it require a completely unnecessary index but for optional relationships it causes long linked lists of null entries in the index. Cheers - Jim -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Gordon DHL Airways Inc. jgordon@us.dhl.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opinions are my own. They may vary with time but they remain mine!