Re: Oracle multi-master replicaiton: index generation necessary?

"Nuno Souto" <nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:3d6a2476$3$28861$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <IMoa9.15474$g9.49128_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, you said (and I
> quote):
> > Just a little snippet from the Oracle documentation:
> >
> > When replicating tables with foreign key referential constraints, Oracle
> > Corporation recommends that you always index foreign key columns and
> > replicate these indexes, unless no updates and deletes are allowed in
the
> > parent table. *Indexes are not replicated automatically*.
>
> Hmm, interesting. I don't have that in my replication book. Which
> version?

This is from 9i doco although I believe the same applies to 8i.

>
> I think they mean cascaded. Not replicated.
>
> >
> > So your comment that indexes are not replicated is not strictly speaking
> > correct.
>
> I'm not sure myself. The darn thing changes from point version to point
> version!

Tell me about it !!

>
> >
> > Also note that it's not good practice as such to have PK on replicated
> > tables. You *must* have a PK if a table is to be replicated, else you
get an
> > error trying to add the table to a replicated group.
>
> Hang on, that doesn't make sense at all. I must have a PK if it is to be
> replicated but it's not good practice to have PK on replicated table?
> What am I missing here?

My subtle distinction between 'best practice' where you have a choice but one option is better than the other vs. *must* when you have no choice and it will either work or not work. I don't think you can add a table to a master to master replicated group if it doesn't have a PK.

Cheers

Richard

>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam
Received on Mon Aug 26 2002 - 08:37:40 CDT