Search Results

Search found 1112 results on 45 pages for 'constraints'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 7/45 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • T-SQL foreign key check constraint

    - by PaN1C_Showt1Me
    When you create a foreign key constraint in a table and you create the script in MS SQL Management Studio, it looks like this. ALTER TABLE T1 WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK_T1 FOREIGN KEY(project_id) REFERENCES T2 (project_id) GO ALTER TABLE T1 CHECK CONSTRAINT FK_T1 GO What I don't understand is what purpose has the second alter with check constraint. Isn't creating the FK constraint enough? Do you have to add the check constraint to assure reference integrity ? Another question: how would it look like then when you'd write it directly in the column definition? CREATE TABLE T1 ( my_column INT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK_T1 REFERENCES T2(my_column) ) Isn't this enough?

    Read the article

  • Constraining enum value in method parameter

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    enum Fruit { Banana, Orange, Strawberry ... ... // etc, very long enum } PeelFruit(Fruit.Orange); PeelFruit(Fruit.Banana); PeelFruit(Fruit.Strawberry); // huh? can't peel strawberries! Sorry for the lame example, but hopefully you get the idea. Is there a way to constrain the enum values that PeelFruit will accept? Obvisouly I could check them in the method with a switch or something, but it would be cool if there was a way to do it that is a) a bit more compact, and b) would cause a compile time error, not a run time error. [Fruit = Orange,Bannana] void PeelFruit(Fruit fruit) { ... }

    Read the article

  • add Constraint on database with trigger

    - by Am1rr3zA
    Hi, I have 3 tables (Student, Course, student_course_choose(have field grade)) I defined a view on these 3 tables that get me an Average of the each student. I want to have constraint(with trigger) on these view(or on the table that need it) to limit the average of each student between 13 and 18. I somewhere read that I must use foreach statement(instead of foreach row) on trigger because when I decrease some grade of special student and his/her average become less than 13 they don't give me error (because later I increase grade of another his/her course ). how must I wrote this Trigger? (I want to implement aprh for testing trigger) note:I can write it in SQL server, oracle or Mysql no diff for me.

    Read the article

  • Conditional SQLite check constraint?

    - by Rezzie
    I have a table defined by the following SQL: CREATE TABLE test ( id integer PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL UNIQUE, status text NOT NULL, enddate date, /* Checks */ CHECK (status IN ("Current", "Complete")) ); I'd like to add a constraint that requires enddate to be non-null if the status is "Complete". Is this possible? I am using SQLite v3.6.16.

    Read the article

  • UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on a column from foreign table in SQL Server 2008

    - by bodziec
    I have two tables: create table [dbo].[Main] ( [ID] [int] identity(1,1) primary key not null, [Sign] [char](1) not null ) create table [dbo].[Names] ( [ID_Main][int] primary key not null, [Name][nvarchar](128) not null, constraint [FK_Main_Users] foreign key ([ID_Main]) references [dbo].[Main]([ID]), constraint [CK_Name] unique ([Name], [Sign]) ) The problem is with the second constraint CK_Name Is there a way to make a constraint target column from a foreign table?

    Read the article

  • UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on a column from foreign table in MSSQL2008

    - by bodziec
    Hi, I have two tables: create table [dbo].[Main] ( [ID] [int] identity(1,1) primary key not null, [Sign] [char](1) not null ) create table [dbo].[Names] ( [ID_Main][int] primary key not null, [Name][nvarchar](128) not null, constraint [FK_Main_Users] foreign key ([ID_Main]) references [dbo].[Main]([ID]), constraint [CK_Name] unique ([Name], [Sign]) ) The problem is with the second constraint CK_Name Is there a way to make a constraint target column from a foreign table?

    Read the article

  • Using a check contraint in MySQL for controlling string length

    - by ptrn
    I'm tumbled with a problem! I've set up my first check constraint using MySQL, but unfortunately I'm having a problem. When inserting a row that should fail the test, the row is inserted anyway. The structure: CREATE TABLE user ( id INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, uname VARCHAR(10) NOT NULL, fname VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL, lname VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL, mail VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id), CHECK (LENGTH(fname) > 30) ); The insert statement: INSERT INTO user VALUES (null, 'user', 'Fname', 'Lname', '[email protected]'); The length of the string in the fname column should be too short, but it's inserted anyway. I'm pretty sure I'm missing something basic here.

    Read the article

  • How to declare a generic constraint that is a generic type

    - by HackedByChinese
    I have a two generic abstract types: Entity and Association. Let's say Entity looks like this: public class Entity<TId> { //... } and Association looks like this: public class Association<TEntity, TEntity2> { //... } How do I constrain Association so they can be of any Entity? I can accomplish it by the following: public class Association<TEntity, TId, TEntity2, TId2> where TEntity : Entity<TId> where TEntity2: Entity<TId2> { //... } This gets very tedious as more types derive from Association, because I have to keep passing down TId and TId2. Is there a simpler way to do this, besides just removing the constraint?

    Read the article

  • SQL DROP TABLE foreign key constraint

    - by Polly Hollanger
    If I want to delete all the tables in my database like this, will it take care of the foreign key constraint? If not, how do I take care of that first? GO IF OBJECT_ID('dbo.[Course]','U') IS NOT NULL DROP TABLE dbo.[Course] GO IF OBJECT_ID('dbo.[Student]','U') IS NOT NULL DROP TABLE dbo.[Student]

    Read the article

  • Grails: Property Null error

    - by richardhell
    I've a domain called Modulo with some properties and a Controller with a method that create a object from model and save it, when execute save the shell show this error: La propiedad [{0}] de la clase [{1}] no puede ser nulo But if i set the constraint nullable to true, the error show again. I think that i should not set this cosntraint. The model is linked to a mysql table with all properties except id allow null. I think I am not doing something wrong here. Any advice?? Domain: Modulo class Modulo { String nombre String icon String url //static constraint = { // url(nullable:true) //} } Controller: Example class ExampleController { def index = { def modulo = new Modulo( nombre:'xxx', icon:'xxx' ) if (modulo.save()){ println 'ok' }else{ modulo.errors.allErrors.each { println it.defaultMessage} } } } Thanks. José

    Read the article

  • After Trigger execute before constraint check in oracle

    - by satakare
    Hi, I have After Insert/Update trigger on Table T1 which get the referential data for Col1 from T2 and does some work and insert it into another table. The col1 is FK to Table T2. When user insert the incorrect or non existing value into the Col1 and if trigger is disabled I am getting constraint error that is fine. But when trigger is enabled and user insert the wrong value in Col1 trigger is getting fired and shows the 'no data found' error message. Actually I am expecting the table to throw constraint error, but trigger is throwing it. Please let me know your comments about this trigger behaviour.

    Read the article

  • Having constrains object to move X,Y at the same time?

    - by Hwang
    The stage is separated into 4 sections, and I will be moving the camera around the stage. So at each particular section the camera will have an area of constrain it can move. I mange to constrain its X & Y, but it could only navigate either X or Y. How to move in X+Y at the same time? if (mouseX>sec2maxX) { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {x:sec2maxX}); } else if (mouseX<sec2minX) { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {x:sec2minX}); } else { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {x:mouseX}); } if (mouseY<sec2minY) { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {y:sec2minY}); } else if (mouseY>sec2maxY) { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {y:sec2maxY}); } else { TweenLite.to(vC, 1, {y:mouseY}); } if i were to put X & Y in a same line of code it would be a lot of possibilities when the mouse is on top left or right bottom kind of situation, so I need to have it running seperately, but how can I combine it so that it could move X+Y?

    Read the article

  • Can I constrain a route parameter to a certain type in ASP.net MVC?

    - by Paul Suart
    I have the following route: routes.MapRoute( "Search", // Route name "Search/{affiliateId}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Syndication", action = "Search" } // Parameter defaults ); Is there a way I can ensure "affiliateId" is a valid Guid? I'm using MVCContrib elsewhere in my site and I'm fairly it provides a way to implement this kind of constraint.... I just don't know what it is!

    Read the article

  • Why is TRest in Tuple<T1... TRest> not constrained?

    - by Anthony Pegram
    In a Tuple, if you have more than 7 items, you can provide an 8th item that is another tuple and define up to 7 items, and then another tuple as the 8th and on and on down the line. However, there is no constraint on the 8th item at compile time. For example, this is legal code for the compiler: var tuple = new Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, double> (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1d); Even though the intellisense documentation says that TRest must be a Tuple. You do not get any error when writing or building the code, it does not manifest until runtime in the form of an ArgumentException. You can roughly implement a Tuple in a few minutes, complete with a Tuple-constrained 8th item. I just wonder why it was left off the current implementation? Is it possibly a forward-compatibility issue where they could add more elements with a hypothetical C# 5? Short version of rough implementation interface IMyTuple { } class MyTuple<T1> : IMyTuple { public T1 Item1 { get; private set; } public MyTuple(T1 item1) { Item1 = item1; } } class MyTuple<T1, T2> : MyTuple<T1> { public T2 Item2 { get; private set; } public MyTuple(T1 item1, T2 item2) : base(item1) { Item2 = item2; } } class MyTuple<T1, T2, TRest> : MyTuple<T1, T2> where TRest : IMyTuple { public TRest Rest { get; private set; } public MyTuple(T1 item1, T2 item2, TRest rest) : base(item1, item2) { Rest = rest; } } ... var mytuple = new MyTuple<int, int, MyTuple<int>>(1, 1, new MyTuple<int>(1)); // legal var mytuple2 = new MyTuple<int, int, int>(1, 2, 3); // illegal

    Read the article

  • Generic Type constraint in .net

    - by Jose
    Okay I'm looking for some input, I'm pretty sure this is not currently supported in .NET 3.5 but here goes. I want to require a generic type passed into my class to have a constructor like this: new(IDictionary<string,object>) so the class would look like this public MyClass<T> where T : new(IDictionary<string,object>) { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { return new T(values); } } But the compiler doesn't support this, it doesn't really know what I'm asking. Some of you might ask, why do you want to do this? Well I'm working on a pet project of an ORM so I get values from the DB and then create the object and load the values. I thought it would be cleaner to allow the object just create itself with the values I give it. As far as I can tell I have two options: 1) Use reflection(which I'm trying to avoid) to grab the PropertyInfo[] array and then use that to load the values. 2) require T to support an interface like so: public interface ILoadValues { void LoadValues(IDictionary values); } and then do this public MyClass<T> where T:new(),ILoadValues { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { T obj = new T(); obj.LoadValues(values); return obj; } } The problem I have with the interface I guess is philosophical, I don't really want to expose a public method for people to load the values. Using the constructor the idea was that if I had an object like this namespace DataSource.Data { public class User { protected internal User(IDictionary<string,object> values) { //Initialize } } } As long as the MyClass<T> was in the same assembly the constructor would be available. I personally think that the Type constraint in my opinion should ask (Do I have access to this constructor? I do, great!) Anyways any input is welcome.

    Read the article

  • [CODE GENERATION] How to generate DELETE statements in PL/SQL, based on the tables FK relations?

    - by The chicken in the kitchen
    Is it possible via script/tool to generate authomatically many delete statements based on the tables fk relations, using Oracle PL/SQL? In example: I have the table: CHICKEN (CHICKEN_CODE NUMBER) and there are 30 tables with fk references to its CHICKEN_CODE that I need to delete; there are also other 150 tables foreign-key-linked to that 30 tables that I need to delete first. Is there some tool/script PL/SQL that I can run in order to generate all the necessary delete statements based on the FK relations for me? (by the way, I know about cascade delete on the relations, but please pay attention: I CAN'T USE IT IN MY PRODUCTION DATABASE, because it's dangerous!) I'm using Oracle DataBase 10G R2. This is the result I've written, but it is not recursive: This is a view I have previously written, but of course it is not recursive! CREATE OR REPLACE FORCE VIEW RUN ( OWNER_1, CONSTRAINT_NAME_1, TABLE_NAME_1, TABLE_NAME, VINCOLO ) AS SELECT OWNER_1, CONSTRAINT_NAME_1, TABLE_NAME_1, TABLE_NAME, '(' || LTRIM ( EXTRACT (XMLAGG (XMLELEMENT ("x", ',' || COLUMN_NAME)), '/x/text()'), ',') || ')' VINCOLO FROM ( SELECT CON1.OWNER OWNER_1, CON1.TABLE_NAME TABLE_NAME_1, CON1.CONSTRAINT_NAME CONSTRAINT_NAME_1, CON1.DELETE_RULE, CON1.STATUS, CON.TABLE_NAME, CON.CONSTRAINT_NAME, COL.POSITION, COL.COLUMN_NAME FROM DBA_CONSTRAINTS CON, DBA_CONS_COLUMNS COL, DBA_CONSTRAINTS CON1 WHERE CON.OWNER = 'TABLE_OWNER' AND CON.TABLE_NAME = 'TABLE_OWNED' AND ( (CON.CONSTRAINT_TYPE = 'P') OR (CON.CONSTRAINT_TYPE = 'U')) AND COL.TABLE_NAME = CON1.TABLE_NAME AND COL.CONSTRAINT_NAME = CON1.CONSTRAINT_NAME --AND CON1.OWNER = CON.OWNER AND CON1.R_CONSTRAINT_NAME = CON.CONSTRAINT_NAME AND CON1.CONSTRAINT_TYPE = 'R' GROUP BY CON1.OWNER, CON1.TABLE_NAME, CON1.CONSTRAINT_NAME, CON1.DELETE_RULE, CON1.STATUS, CON.TABLE_NAME, CON.CONSTRAINT_NAME, COL.POSITION, COL.COLUMN_NAME) GROUP BY OWNER_1, CONSTRAINT_NAME_1, TABLE_NAME_1, TABLE_NAME; ... and it contains the error of using DBA_CONSTRAINTS instead of ALL_CONSTRAINTS...

    Read the article

  • Namespace constraint with generic class decleration

    - by SomeGuy
    Good afternoon people, I would like to know if (and if so how) it is possible to define a namespace as a constraint parameter in a generic class declaration. What I have is this: namespace MyProject.Models.Entities <-- Contains my classes to be persisted in db namespace MyProject.Tests.BaseTest <-- Obvious i think Now the decleration of my 'BaseTest' class looks like so; public class BaseTest<T> This BaseTest does little more (at the time of writing) than remove all entities that were added to the database during testing. So typically I will have a test class declared as: public class MyEntityRepositoryTest : BaseTest<MyEntity> What i would LIKE to do is something similar to the following: public class BaseTest<T> where T : <is of the MyProject.Models.Entities namespace> Now i am aware that it would be entirely possible to simply declare a 'BaseEntity' class from which all entities created within the MyProject.Models.Entities namespace will inherit from; public class BaseTest<T> where T : MyBaseEntity but...I dont actually need to, or want to. Plus I am using an ORM and mapping entities with inheritance, although possible, adds a layer of complexity that is not required. So, is it possible to constrain a generic class parameter to a namespace and not a specific type ? Thank you for your time.

    Read the article

  • How to do multiple column UniqueConstraint in hbm?

    - by DataSurfer
    Working on some legacy hibernate code. How do I do the following with hbm.xml(hibernate mapping file) instead of with annotations? @Table(name="users", uniqueConstraints = { @UniqueConstraint(columnNames={"username", "client"}), @UniqueConstraint(columnNames={"email", "client"}) }) public class User implements Serializable { private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L; @Id private int id; private String username; private String email; private Client client; }

    Read the article

  • I'm looking for a constraint to prevent the insert of an empty string in MySQL

    - by Marga Keuvelaar
    Ok, in this question I learned how to prevent the insert of a NULL value. But, unfortunately, an empty string is being inserted anyway. Apart from preventing this on the PHP side, I'd like to use something like a database constraint to prevent this. Of course a check on the application side is necessary, but I'd like it to be on both sides. I am taught that whatever application is talking to your database, it should not be able to insert basically wrong data in it. So... CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS tblFoo ( foo_id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, foo_test varchar(50) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (foo_id) ); Would still allow me to do this insert: INSERT INTO tblFoo (foo_test) VALUES (''); Which I would like to prevent.

    Read the article

  • XForms relation of 'constraint' and 'required' properties

    - by Danny
    As a reference, the most similar question already asked is: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8667849/making-xforms-enforce-the-constraint-and-type-model-item-properties-only-when-fi The difference is that I cannot use the relevant properties since I do want the field to be visible and accessible. I'm attempting to make a XForms form that has the following properties: It displays a text field named 'information'. (for the example) This field must not be required, since it may not be necessary to enter data. (Or this data will be entered at a later time.) However, if data is entered in this field, it must adhere to the specified constraint. I cannot mark the field as not relevant since this would hide the field and some data may need to be entered in it. The trouble now is that even though the field has no data in it, the constraint is still enforced (i.e. even though it is not marked as 'required'). I have taken a look at the XForms 1.1 specification, however it does not seem to describe how the properties 'required' and 'constraint' should interact. The only option I see, is to add a part to the constraint such that an empty value is allowed. e.g.: . = '' or <actual-constraint However, I don't like this. It feels like a workaround to add this to every such field. Is there any other way to express that non-required fields should not need to match the constraint for that field? (Am I missing something?)

    Read the article

  • T-SQL Unique constraint locked the SQL server

    - by PaN1C_Showt1Me
    HI ! This is my table: CREATE TABLE [ORG].[MyTable]( .. [my_column2] UNIQUEIDENTIFIER NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK_C1 REFERENCES ORG.MyTable2 (my_column2), [my_column3] INT NOT NULL CONSTRAINT FK_C2 REFERENCES ORG.MyTable3 (my_column3) .. ) I've written this constraint to assure that combination my_column2 and my_column3 is always unique. ALTER TABLE [ORG].[MyTable] ADD CONSTRAINT UQ_MyConstraint UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED ( my_column2, my_column3 ) But then suddenly.. The DB stopped responding.. there is a lock or something.. Do you have any idea why? What is bad with the constraint?

    Read the article

  • MySQL Removing Some Foreign keys

    - by Drew
    I have a table whose primary key is used in several other tables and has several foreign keys to other tables. CREATE TABLE location ( locationID INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY ... ) ENGINE = InnoDB; CREATE TABLE assignment ( assignmentID INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY, locationID INT NOT NULL, FOREIGN KEY locationIDX (locationID) REFERENCES location (locationID) ... ) ENGINE = InnoDB; CREATE TABLE assignmentStuff ( ... assignmentID INT NOT NULL, FOREIGN KEY assignmentIDX (assignmentID) REFERENCES assignment (assignmentID) ) ENGINE = InnoDB; The problem is that when I'm trying to drop one of the foreign key columns (ie locationIDX) it gives me an "ERROR 1025 (HY000): Error on rename" error. How can I drop the column in the assignment table above without getting this error?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >