Greg Stark wrote:
>
>
>>>>So a db designer made a bloody mistake.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>Not necessarily. If I'm never going to update or delete from the parent table
>the index would be useless. I find very few of my foreign key relationships
>actually need indexes on the child table. I usually only have the unique index
>on the parent table.
>
>And often the child table is the big table. The index would be very large and
>have awful selectivity. The last thing I want is a 5-million record table with
>half a dozen indexes each with 10-20 unique values.
>
>
>
>>>>The problem is there's no easy way to find out what's missing.
>>>>I'd really like EXPLAIN to display all subsequent triggered queries
>>>>also, to see the full scans caused by missing indexes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I'd sure second that!
>>>
>>>
>
>I think the root of problem here is the same as the root of the problem with
>foreign key checks being slow for large batch updates and inserts. Namely that
>foreign key constraint checks are being handled as a million small queries.
>
Apart from missing indices, this is certainly a problem. Statement level
triggers will solve this, as soon as they are fully implemented and
support OLD and NEW record sets.
Regards,
Andreas
