max 64 keys allowed..

[Stephane Le Dorze]

We are experiencing this problem:

com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.MySQLSyntaxErrorException: Too many keys specified; max 64 keys allowed

Looks like it requiers recompiling mySQL..

Any solution? (Joao; I think this is related to the use of inheritance; if so you told me Fenix EDU has a workaround, how to use it?)

Thanks!

Stephane

[Stephane Le Dorze]

We had the issue because too much 'subroots' (one per object kind) were related to the main root object (generating the need for a foreign key).

So I've decided to abstract the type of these object (using inheritance and some automatically generated code to manage our needs).

Everything is now more manageable but is clearly an example of "leaky abstraction" (I understand the reasons) but would have not happened.

[Joao Cachopo]

Stephane Le Dorze <stephane...@gmail.com> writes:

> We had the issue because too much 'subroots' (one per object kind)
> were related to the main root object (generating the need for a
> foreign key).

Hi!

Sorry for not answering before, but it seems that you already solved
your problem.

Still, there is one thing that I would like to know. Are these
troublesome relations 1-to-1 or 1-to-many?

Because, from your email, it seems that they are 1-to-1, and, if they
are, then there is no need of indexes for those foreign keys. At least
not with the latest version of the fenix-framework.

But I believe that the SQL code generator is creating indexes even in
those cases. I'll check this and change it soon.

Best regards,
--
João Cachopo

[Stephane Le Dorze]

One - One; Indeed! :)

[Joao Cachopo]

Hi!

Some days ago, after a report of Stéphane that there were many indexes
being generated, and after finding out that there were indexes generated
for 1-to-1 relations, I said that:

> But I believe that the SQL code generator is creating indexes even in
> those cases. I'll check this and change it soon.

The last version of the fenix-framework no longer creates unnecessary
indexes. Now, they are created only for 1-to-n relations.

[Stephane Le Dorze]

Thanks, this is greatly appreciated.

2009/11/1 Joao Cachopo <joao.c...@ist.utl.pt>