Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Krishna Chandra Prajapati (prajapatikcgmail.com)
Date: Wed May 14 2008 - 23:37:43 CDT
Since user_id is a primary key. It should work either with any of the column
and with both the column.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Rob Wultsch <wultschgmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Krishna Chandra Prajapati
> <prajapatikcgmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > Below is the user_delivery table structure.
> > CREATE TABLE `user_delivery` (
> > `user_id` decimal(22,0) NOT NULL default '0',
> > `delivery_id` decimal(22,0) NOT NULL default '0',
> > `send_to_regulator` char(1) default NULL,
> > PRIMARY KEY (`user_id`),
> > KEY `user_delivery_comp1` (`user_id`,`delivery_id`),
> > CONSTRAINT `fk_user_delivery` FOREIGN KEY (`user_id`) REFERENCES
> > `user_info` (`user_id`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION
> > ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;
> > According to me user_delivery_comp1 index can be dropped and new index
> > be created on delivery_id column. I would to know that the changes will
> > or not. Yours suggestion regarding this table structure.
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Krishna Chandra Prajapati
> Define work.
> The effect should be something like:
> Queries that have where clauses for delivery_id but not user_id would
> be able to use an index.
> Queries that have where clauses for delivery_id and user_id might not
> be able to use as much of an index. Depending on your version of mysql
> merge index may apply, but I am not knowledge enough to comment of the
> performance differences between the two. I would assume a composite
> index when available would generally be more ideal.
> Rob Wultsch
> wultsch (aim)
Krishna Chandra Prajapati
Ed Ventures e-Learning Pvt.Ltd.
1-8-303/48/15, Sindhi Colony
Pin Code: 500003
Office Number: 040-66489771