home clear 64x64
en blue 200x116 de orange 200x116 info letter User
suche 36x36
Latest versionsfixlist
14.10.xC11 FixList
12.10.xC16.X5 FixList
11.70.xC9.XB FixList
11.50.xC9.X2 FixList
11.10.xC3.W5 FixList
Have problems? - contact us.
Register for free anmeldung-x26
Contact form kontakt-x26

Informix - Problem description

Problem IT02015 Status: Closed

CREATING MULTIPLE ATTACHED INDEXES ON SAME FIELD WITH ASC/DESC
DIFFERENTIATOR RETURNS ERROR 350/108

product:
INFORMIX SERVER / 5725A3900 / C10 - IDS 12.10
Problem description:
Creating an attached index when there is already one existing on 
the same column but with a differentiator of asc or desc will 
return error 350/108. 
 
Example: 
 
  create index i1 on t (i asc) in table; 
  create index i2 on t (i desc) in table;  <-- error 350 / 108 
returned
Problem Summary:
**************************************************************** 
* USERS AFFECTED:                                              * 
* IDS11.70 and IDS12.10 users using attached indexes           * 
**************************************************************** 
* PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:                                         * 
* See Error Description                                        * 
**************************************************************** 
* RECOMMENDATION:                                              * 
* Update to IDS-12.10.xC5                                      * 
****************************************************************
Local Fix:
If "in table" is replaced by "in <dbspace>" for index i2, it 
does work as well as if both "in table" statements are removed, 
making both indexes detached. 
 
Another workaround is to add a filler in declaration of index 
i2: 
 
  create index i1 on t (i asc) in table; 
  create index i2 on t (i desc, filler) in table;
Solution
Problem Fixed In IDS-12.10.xC5
Workaround
not known / see Local fix
Timestamps
Date  - problem reported    :
Date  - problem closed      :
Date  - last modified       :
23.05.2014
16.10.2015
16.10.2015
Problem solved at the following versions (IBM BugInfos)
Problem solved according to the fixlist(s) of the following version(s)
11.70.xC8.W1 FixList
12.10.xC4.W1 FixList
12.10.xC5 FixList
12.10.xC5.W1 FixList