Archives of the TeradataForum
Message Posted: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 @ 19:03:31 GMT
Let's see ... This text comes after the following phrase:
"You can define fallback for join indexes. The criteria for deciding whether to define a join index with fallback are similar to those used for deciding whether to define fallback on base tables." [on the same page]
Together I read this as if they are discussing the additional criteria one has to have in mind when deciding NOT to define fallback on JI.
In total there are four combinations:
base table fallback Yes/No;
Donald's example is of the "No, Yes" type but there could be another situation: "Yes, No". The latter is especially covered by the second point (as above). Although the base table is fallback protected, it won't be updatable if an AMP fails because the JI is _not_ fallback protected. So, the base table won't have its full functionality and this becomes an additional point of concern when selecting data protection policy in the presence of JI. That's how I read it.
Clay, could you perhaps help with some test results?
|Copyright 2016 - All Rights Reserved|
|Last Modified: 27 Dec 2016|