Home Page for the TeradataForum

Archives of the TeradataForum

Message Posted: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 @ 10:19:35 GMT

  <Prev Next>  

Subj:   PPI constrains
From:   Faible Mou


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
      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?


  <Prev Next>  
  Top Home Privacy Feedback  
Copyright for the TeradataForum (TDATA-L), Manta BlueSky    
Copyright 2016 - All Rights Reserved    
Last Modified: 15 Jun 2023