Re: Fragments vs location of tables

"Art S. Kagel" <kagel@bloomberg.com> writes: >Francisco Reyes > ->> Today while looking at table info I noticed the tables which are NOT ->> supposed to be on db1 report to be using the dbspace. One of them ->> even had db1 listed 3 times. Any clues why these tables are using ->> db1? > >What do you mean by the table info? I meant from dbaccess "Table, Info, Fragments". My understanding is this reports the dbspaces where the fragments are. >Look in sysfragments instead. >Art S. Kagel I just did. It coincides with the info from dbaccess. By looking at sysfragments it seems the indexes are the ones that have remained in db1. I thought when doing round robin the index followed the tables (i.e. fragment2 in db2, index for fragment 2 would also go in db2). Isn't this the case? It seems all the fragment index are going to db1 instead of the dbspaces where my fragments are. The syntax I am using to create the tables is: create table .... fragment by round robin in db1, db2, .... Anything wrong with that? Just tried deleting the fragment from db1 in a table (using dbaccess). The table is no longer in db1, but the index remain. I believe these are the primary key index. How can I re-locate those to the other dbspaces?