Add check for overlapping indices #114
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
arybczak
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2024
| @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ data ExtrasOptions = | |||
| -- the one in the code definition. | |||
| , eoCheckForeignKeysIndexes :: !Bool | |||
| -- ^ Check if all foreign keys have indexes. | |||
| , eoCheckOverlappingIndexes :: !Bool | |||
| -- ^ Check if some index are redundant | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| -- ^ Check if some index are redundant | |
| -- ^ Check if some indexes are redundant. |
|
Looks good 👍 |
Raveline
force-pushed
the
add-overlapping-index-detection
branch
from
5d74d9c to
12ffff6
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds a check for overlapping indexes. As this is relatively tricky to write in haskell, we rely upon a query provided by @marco44 (the query and the comments are his, not mine). The main problem with this is that we have to run a query during the checks in order to get the required information, which makes the checking function a bit more convoluted. Apologies.
Output looks like this: