Archives of the TeradataForum
Message Posted: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 @ 10:19:35 GMT
The following is an example from a book that I'm reading for requesting a PPI:
CREATE TABLE employee ( emp INTEGER, dep INTEGER, ... hire_date DATE ) UNIQUE PRIMARY INDEX(emp) PARTITION BY RANGE_N (hire_date ...);
Moreover, the following is a paragraph taken from another book of the same author as above on disadvantages on PPI,
"You can t have a Unique Primary Index (UPI) if the Partition Number is not at least part of the Primary Index. You must therefore create a Unique Secondary Index to maintain uniqueness."
Seems to me the example does not have the Partition Number as part of the Primary Index, so the two saying are contradicting with each other (at least seems to me so).
Are the example and the disadvantage-explanation both correct? If the disadvantage-explanation is true, what would be the best USI here? What's the real truth about the issue?
|Copyright 2016 - All Rights Reserved|
|Last Modified: 27 Dec 2016|