.The Dbal currently doesn't allow adding tables with foreign keys, nor does UMIL. Supporting FK would mean building all that into the Dbal for all supported DMBS. Not likely for 3.1.code reader wrote:??????DavidIQ wrote:+1 but I'm not sure 3.1 should be the target. This is much bigger/complex than just defining a few foreign keys.
as far as i understand, this RFC is about one thing, and one thing only: adding some foreign key indexes. how is it "much bigger/complex than just defining a few foreign keys"? what else is there in this RFC?
Should be able to use QI for that.brunoais wrote:I can do that no prob. The issue is that I don't have a big board to test it on.
If someone can get me "junk" ( DB dump or a traffic generator) to fill my local phpBB forum so that it becomes properly/enough filled I can do benchmark tests to see how much difference I can make by adding foreign keys.
The main reason here is the clams of lack of speed of the queries to apply the idea topic I mentioned.
Anyway, It only works for when there are JOIN's, otherwise, it's just another hassle for the DB
Has QI been modified to work on 3.1? Last I heard, it didn't but I don't know if that got fixed at Montreal.DavidIQ wrote:Should be able to use QI for that.brunoais wrote:I can do that no prob. The issue is that I don't have a big board to test it on.
If someone can get me "junk" ( DB dump or a traffic generator) to fill my local phpBB forum so that it becomes properly/enough filled I can do benchmark tests to see how much difference I can make by adding foreign keys.
The main reason here is the clams of lack of speed of the queries to apply the idea topic I mentioned.
Anyway, It only works for when there are JOIN's, otherwise, it's just another hassle for the DB
The support for 3.1 has not been completed yet. I'll do that as soon as I get some free time.imkingdavid wrote:Has QI been modified to work on 3.1? Last I heard, it didn't but I don't know if that got fixed at Montreal.
