Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle versus MS Sql Server

Re: Oracle versus MS Sql Server

From: Niall Litchfield <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:12:43 -0000
Message-ID: <3bdd39ab$0$8512$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net>


A foreign key constraint does not necessarily imply that the remote key is a primary key. I agree that Oracle should attempt to index the remot columns - silently ignoring 'such column list already indexed' errors.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission Uk
"Jeff" <jeff_at_work.com> wrote in message
news:9rbmkl$85u$1_at_cronkite.cc.uga.edu...

> In article <3BD87AEE.A2FF2701_at_indra.com>, Ron Reidy <rereidy_at_indra.com>
wrote:
>
> >are the defaults, there are no PKs, the FKs do not have corresponding
> >indexes, etc. Many of these things are topics of Oracle Design 101.
>
> My curiosity is peaked... how do you have FK constraint without a PK (and
it's
> index)? I'm amazed that Oracle would even allow this.
Received on Mon Oct 29 2001 - 05:12:43 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US