[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r1296868 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/rep-cache-db.sql

From: Trent Nelson <trent_at_snakebite.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:05:20 -0700

On 3/14/12 3:40 PM, "Daniel Shahaf" <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:

>Philip: I recalled last year's discussions about implied indexes, but
>between Trent's reported observations on IRC and a back-of-the-envelope
>test with sqlite3(1) I was led to believe that an implied index does not
>get created for in this case (due to the TEXT column, as my comment
>I'm more than happy to revert this on trunk (if it hasn't been already)
>assuming it's indeed superfluous.
>Trent -- have you looked into things from your end yet? Can you confirm
>or deny the hypothesis that the explicit INDEX was necessary in your

Try as I might, I can't reproduce the original behavior that set us off
down this superfluous index route. +1 to revert; I was wrong.

Received on 2012-03-14 23:06:15 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.