Skip to Main Content
IBM Sterling

This portal is to open public enhancement requests for IBM Sterling products and services. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.

Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM. - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Future consideration
Created by Guest
Created on Mar 18, 2021

Database extensions should have a provision to create indexes only on ACTIVE tables.

Database extensions should have a provision to create indexes only on ACTIVE tables. As most of the queries/monitoring and reporting are performed on the ACTIVE tables.

These indices may not be always needed on the HISTORY tables.

What is your industry? Non-Industry Specific
How will this idea be used?

This way Database resource utilization can be optimized.

And Index addition configuration can be done selectively with for ACTIVE alone or for both ACTIVE & HISTORY.

  • Guest
    May 3, 2021

    Thank you for your feedback Sunith. One concern with this approach would be the potential unexpected performance degradation if a user did end up making a query on both the active and history tables (i.e. ReadFromHistory="B" for order search) without realizing that the history table did not have the index. This would of course be a smaller risk for less commonly searched history tables, as you have suggested. Since we have not heard this request from other sources, we will give it some time on the Idea portal to see if others up-vote it and can consider it for a future release if appropriate.

  • Guest
    May 3, 2021

    Hello Aaron,

    Most of the time we will need a wider search strategy mainly on Active tables. Such a wider searching would not be really needed for History tables. As there would not be a lot of queries, And usual volume between HISTORY to ACTIVE tables are in 3:1 ratio. Indexing space is also similar without using much of HISTORY indices.

    It would be nice to have more flexibility to the implementer by selectively creating indices either on active and/or history tables.

  • Guest
    Apr 1, 2021

    Hi Sunith, thank you for your Idea submission. To help me understand the request better, is there a specific scenario where having the index on the history table is leading to a big impact?