Search Results

Search found 5527 results on 222 pages for 'unique constraint'.

Page 9/222 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Elegantly handling constraint violations in EJB/JPA environment?

    - by hallidave
    I'm working with EJB and JPA on a Glassfish v3 app server. I have an Entity class where I'm forcing one of the fields to be unique with a @Column annotation. @Entity public class MyEntity implements Serializable { private String uniqueName; public MyEntity() { } @Column(unique = true, nullable = false) public String getUniqueName() { return uniqueName; } public void setUniqueName(String uniqueName) { this.uniqueName = uniqueName; } } When I try to persist an object with this field set to a non-unique value I get an exception (as expected) when the transaction managed by the EJB container commits. I have two problems I'd like to solve: 1) The exception I get is the unhelpful "javax.ejb.EJBException: Transaction aborted". If I recursively call getCause() enough times, I eventually reach the more useful "java.sql.SQLIntegrityConstraintViolationException", but this exception is part of the EclipseLink implementation and I'm not really comfortable relying on it's existence. Is there a better way to get detailed error information with JPA? 2) The EJB container insists on logging this error even though I catch it and handle it. Is there a better way to handle this error which will stop Glassfish from cluttering up my logs with useless exception information? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Computer components which have unique ID

    - by user23950
    What are the computer parts that has a unique ID? Be it software or hardware. For example, IP Address. And the MAC ID in the NIC. Unique ID's that could be used by bad sites to distinguish you from the rest of the crowd. Edit: Or anything that cannot be changed. Anything that is embedded in the hardware that cannot be changed.

    Read the article

  • Rejuvenated: Script Creates and Drops for Candidate Keys and Referencing Foreign Keys

    - by Adam Machanic
    Once upon a time it was 2004, and I wrote what I have to say was a pretty cool little script . (Yes, I know the post is dated 2006, but that's because I dropped the ball and failed to back-date the posts when I moved them over here from my prior blog space.) The impetus for creating this script was (and is) simple: Changing keys can be a painful experience. Sometimes you want to make a clustered key nonclustered, or a nonclustered key clustered. Or maybe you want to add a column to the key. Or remove...(read more)

    Read the article

  • C# asp.net EF MVC postgresql error 23505: Duplicate key violates unique constraint

    - by user2721755
    EDIT: It was issue with database table - dropping and recreating table id column did the work. Problem solved. I'm trying to build web application, that is connected to postgresql database. Results are displaying in view with Kendo UI. When I'm trying to add new row (with Kendo UI 'Add new record' button), I get error 23505: 'Duplicate key violates unique constraint'. My guess is, that EF takes id to insert from the beginning, not the last one, because after 35 (it's number of rows in table) tries - and errors - adding works perfectly. Can someone help me to understand, what's wrong? Model: using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations; using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema; namespace MainConfigTest.Models { [Table("mainconfig", Schema = "public")] public class Mainconfig { [Column("id")] [Key] [Editable(false)] public int Id { get; set; } [Column("descr")] [Editable(true)] public string Descr { get; set; } [Column("hibversion")] [Required] [Editable(true)] public long Hibversion { get; set; } [Column("mckey")] [Required] [Editable(true)] public string Mckey { get; set; } [Column("valuexml")] [Editable(true)] public string Valuexml { get; set; } [Column("mcvalue")] [Editable(true)] public string Mcvalue { get; set; } } } Context: using System.Data.Entity; namespace MainConfigTest.Models { public class MainConfigContext : DbContext { public DbSet<Mainconfig> Mainconfig { get; set; } } } Controller: namespace MainConfigTest.Controllers { public class MainConfigController : Controller { #region Properties private Models.MainConfigContext db = new Models.MainConfigContext(); private string mainTitle = "Mainconfig (Kendo UI)"; #endregion #region Initialization public MainConfigController() { ViewBag.MainTitle = mainTitle; } #endregion #region Ajax [HttpGet] public JsonResult GetMainconfig() { int take = HttpContext.Request["take"] == null ? 5 : Convert.ToInt32(HttpContext.Request["take"]); int skip = HttpContext.Request["skip"] == null ? 0 : Convert.ToInt32(HttpContext.Request["skip"]); Array data = (from Models.Mainconfig c in db.Mainconfig select c).OrderBy(c => c.Id).ToArray().Skip(skip).Take(take).ToArray(); return Json(new Models.MainconfigResponse(data, db.Mainconfig.Count()), JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet); } [HttpPost] public JsonResult Create() { try { Mainconfig itemToAdd = new Mainconfig() { Descr = Convert.ToString(HttpContext.Request["Descr"]), Hibversion = Convert.ToInt64(HttpContext.Request["Hibversion"]), Mckey = Convert.ToString(HttpContext.Request["Mckey"]), Valuexml = Convert.ToString(HttpContext.Request["Valuexml"]), Mcvalue = Convert.ToString(HttpContext.Request["Mcvalue"]) }; db.Mainconfig.Add(itemToAdd); db.SaveChanges(); return Json(new { Success = true }); } catch (InvalidOperationException ex) { return Json(new { Success = false, msg = ex }); } } //other methods } } Kendo UI script in view: <script type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function () { $("#config-grid").kendoGrid({ sortable: true, pageable: true, scrollable: false, toolbar: ["create"], editable: { mode: "popup" }, dataSource: { pageSize: 5, serverPaging: true, transport: { read: { url: '@Url.Action("GetMainconfig")', dataType: "json" }, update: { url: '@Url.Action("Update")', type: "Post", dataType: "json", complete: function (e) { $("#config-grid").data("kendoGrid").dataSource.read(); } }, destroy: { url: '@Url.Action("Delete")', type: "Post", dataType: "json" }, create: { url: '@Url.Action("Create")', type: "Post", dataType: "json", complete: function (e) { $("#config-grid").data("kendoGrid").dataSource.read(); } }, }, error: function (e) { if(e.Success == false) { this.cancelChanges(); } }, schema: { data: "Data", total: "Total", model: { id: "Id", fields: { Id: { editable: false, nullable: true }, Descr: { type: "string"}, Hibversion: { type: "number", validation: {required: true,}, }, Mckey: { type: "string", validation: { required: true, }, }, Valuexml:{ type: "string"}, Mcvalue: { type: "string" } } } } }, //end DataSource // generate columns etc. Mainconfig table structure: id serial NOT NULL, descr character varying(200), hibversion bigint NOT NULL, mckey character varying(100) NOT NULL, valuexml character varying(8000), mcvalue character varying(200), CONSTRAINT mainconfig_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id), CONSTRAINT mainconfig_mckey_key UNIQUE (mckey) Any help will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • IIS 7: launch unique site instance per host name

    - by OlduwanSteve
    Is it possible to configure IIS 7 so that a single site with multiple bindings (or wildcard bindings) will launch a unique instance for each unique host name? To explain why this is desirable, we have an application that retrieves its configuration from a remote system. The behaviour of the application is governed by this configuration and not by the 'web.config'. The application uses its host name as a key to retrieve the configuration. Currently it is a manual process to create an identical IIS site for each instance of the application, differing only by the bindings. My thought, if it were possible, is that it would be nice to have one IIS site that effectively works as a template for an arbitrary number of dynamic sites. Whenever it is accessed by a unique host name a new instance of the site would be launched, and all further requests to that host name would go to that instance just as though I had created the site by hand. I use IIS regularly, but only for fairly straightforward site hosting. I'd like to know if this could be configured with vanilla IIS 7, but would also welcome answers that require a plugin or 3rd party product. Programming/architectural suggestions about changes to the app wouldn't really be appropriate for serverfault.

    Read the article

  • Variable field in a constraint annotation

    - by Javi
    Hello, I need to create a custom constraint annotation which can access the value of another field of my bean. I'll use this annotation to validate the field because it depends on the value of the other but the way I define it the compiler says "The value for annotation attribute" of my field "must be a constant expression". I've defined it in this way: @Target(ElementType.FIELD) @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) @Constraint(validatedBy=EqualsFieldValidator.class) @Documented public @interface EqualsField { public String field(); String message() default "{com.myCom.annotations.EqualsField.message}"; Class<?>[] groups() default {}; Class<? extends Payload>[] payload() default {}; } public class EqualsFieldValidator implements ConstraintValidator<EqualsField, String>{ private EqualsField equalsField; @Override public void initialize(EqualsField equalsField) { this.equalsField = equalsField; } @Override public boolean isValid(String thisField, ConstraintValidatorContext arg1) { //my validation } } and in my bean I want something like this: public class MyBean{ private String field1; @EqualsField(field=field1) private String field2; } Is there any way to define the annotation so the field value can be a variable? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Rails: constraint violation on create but not on update

    - by justinbach
    Note: This is a "railsier" (and more succinct) version of this question, which was getting a little long. I'm getting Rails behavior on a production server that I can't replicate on the development server. The codebases are identical save for credentials and caching settings, and both are powered by Oracle 10g databases with identical schema (but different data). My Rails application contains a user model, which has_one registration; registration in turn has_and_belongs_to_many company_ownerships through a registration_ownerships table. Upon registering, users fill out data pertinent to all three models, including a series of checkboxes indicating what registration_ownerships might apply to their account. On the dev server, the registration process is seamless, no matter what data is entered. On production, however, if users check off any of the company ownership fields before submitting their registration, Oracle complains about a constraint violation on the primary key of the company_ownerships table (which is a two-field key based on company_ownership_id and registration_id) and users get the standard Rails 500 error screen. In every case, I've verified that no conflicting record on these two fields exists in the production database, so I don't know why the constraint is getting violated. To further confuse things, if a user registers without listing any ownerships and later goes back and modifies their account to reflect ownership data (which is done through the same interface), the application happily complies with their request and Oracle is well-behaved (this is both on production and dev). I've spent the past couple days trying to figure out what might be causing this problem and am reaching the end of my wits. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Sql Server 2005 Check Constraint not being applied in execution when using variables

    - by DarylS
    Here is some SQL sample code: --Create 2 Sales tables with constraints based on the saledate create table Sales1(SaleDate datetime, Amount money) ALTER TABLE dbo.Sales1 ADD CONSTRAINT CK_Sales1 CHECK (([SaleDate]>='01 May 2010')) GO create table Sales2(SaleDate datetime, Amount money) ALTER TABLE dbo.Sales2 ADD CONSTRAINT CK_Sales2 CHECK (([SaleDate]<'01 May 2010')) GO --Insert some data into Sales1 insert into Sales1 (SaleDate, Amount) values ('02 May 2010', 50) insert into Sales1 (SaleDate, Amount) values ('03 May 2010', 60) GO --Insert some data into Sales2 insert into Sales2 (SaleDate, Amount) values ('30 Mar 2010', 10) insert into Sales2 (SaleDate, Amount) values ('31 Mar 2010', 20) GO --Create a view that combines these 2 tables create VIEW [dbo].[Sales] AS SELECT SaleDate, Amount FROM Sales1 UNION ALL SELECT SaleDate, Amount FROM Sales2 GO --Get the results --Query 1 select * from Sales where SaleDate < '31 Mar 2010' -- if you look at the execution plan this query only looks at Sales2 (Which is good) --Query 2 DECLARE @SaleDate datetime SET @SaleDate = '31 Mar 2010' select * from Sales where SaleDate < @SaleDate -- if you look at the execution plan this query looks at Sales1 and Sales2 (Which is NOT good) Looking at the execution plan you will see that the two queries are differnt. For Query 1 the only table that is accessed is Sales1 (which is good). For Query 2 both tables are accessed (Which is bad). Why are these execution plans different, and how do i get Query 2 to only access the relevant table when variables are used? I have tried to add indexes for the SaleDate column and that does not seem to help.

    Read the article

  • DDD - Validation of unique constraint

    - by W3Max
    In DDD you should never let your entities enter an invalid state. That being said, how do you handle the validation of a unique constraint? The creation of an entity is not a real problem. But let say you have an entity that must have a unique name and there is a thousand instances of this entity type - they are not in memory but stored in a database. Now let say you want to rename an instance. You can't just use a setter... the object could enter an invalid state - you have to validate against the database. How do you handle this scenario in a web environment?

    Read the article

  • EF problem with entity re-ordering and uniqueness constraint

    - by wpfwannabe
    I am using Entity Framework and I've come to an interesting stumbling block. Let's say there is a db table "Item" with "sequence" column of type int (and others of course). Column "sequence" must be unique and it is used for (re)ordering of items. EF maps this table to "Item" class with "sequence" int property. Now let's say I want to swap position of two items by mutually exchanging each other's sequence number. Upon calling SaveChanges() EF throws an exception complaining about "sequence" uniqueness. It probably generates two UPDATEs and the first one probably fails. I assume that plain SQL solution to this issue is using a third UPDATE to introduce a unique sequence value in the process but I am stuck with EF. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How are hash functions like MD5 unique?

    - by Aly
    Im aware that MD5 has had some collisions but this is more of a high level question about hashing functions. If MD5 hashes any arbitrary string into a 32-digit hex value, then according to the Pigeonhole Principle surely this can not be unique as there are more unique arbitrary strings than there are unique 32-digit hex values

    Read the article

  • Find unique vertices from a 'triangle-soup'

    - by sum1stolemyname
    I am building a CAD-file converter on top of two libraries (Opencascade and DWF Toolkit). However, my question is plattform agnostic: Given: I have generated a mesh as a list of triangular faces form a model constructed through my application. Each Triangle is defined through three vertexes, which consist of three floats (x, y & z coordinate). Since the triangles form a mesh, most of the vertices are shared by more then one triangle. Goal: I need to find the list of unique vertices, and to generate an array of faces consisting of tuples of three indices in this list. What i want to do is this: //step 1: build a list of unique vertices for each triangle for each vertex in triangle if not vertex in listOfVertices Add vertex to listOfVertices //step 2: build a list of faces for each triangle for each vertex in triangle Get Vertex Index From listOfvertices AddToMap(vertex Index, triangle) While I do have an implementation which does this, step1 (the generation of the list of unique vertices) is really slow in the order of O(n!), since each vertex is compared to all vertices already in the list. I thought "Hey, lets build a hashmap of my vertices' components using std::map, that ought to speed things up!", only to find that generating a unique key from three floating point values is not a trivial task. Here, the experts of stackoverflow come into play: I need some kind of hash-function which works on 3 floats, or any other function generating a unique value from a 3d-vertex position.

    Read the article

  • Making HABTM relationships unique in CakePHP

    - by Andrea
    I have two models, called Book and Tag, which are in a HABTM relationship. I want a couple (book, tag) to be saved only once. In my models I have var $hasAndBelongsToMany = array( 'Tag' => array( 'className' => 'Tag', 'joinTable' => 'books_tags', 'foreignKey' => 'book_id', 'associationForeignKey' => 'tag_id', 'unique' => true ) ); and viceversa, but the Unique flag does not help me; I can still save two times the same couple. How do I do this in CakePHP? Should I declare the couple (book, tag) unique in the database directly, or will this make CakePHP go nuts? Is there a Cakey way to handle this situation? EDIT: I tried making the couple unique with the query (I'm using MySQL) ALTER TABLE books_tags ADD UNIQUE (book_id,tag_id); but this does not work well. When I save more than one tag at a time, everything goes well if all the couples are new. If at least one of the couples is repeated, CakePHP fails to do the whole operation, so it does not save ANY new couple (not even the good ones).

    Read the article

  • How can a not null constraint be dropped?

    - by Tomislav Nakic-Alfirevic
    Let's say there's a table created as follows: create table testTable ( colA int not null ) How would you drop the not null constraint? I'm looking for something along the lines of ALTER TABLE testTable ALTER COLUMN colA DROP NOT NULL; which is what it would look like if I used PostgreSQL. To my amazement, as far as I've been able to find, the MySQL docs, Google and yes, even Stackoverflow (in spite of dozens or hundreds of NULL-related questions) don't seem to lead towards a single simple SQL statement which will do the job.

    Read the article

  • Domain driven design value object, how to ensure a unique value

    - by Darren
    Hi, I am building a questionnaire creator. A questionnaire consists of sections, sections consist of pages and pages consist of questions. Questionnaire is the aggregate root. Sections, pages and questions can have what are called shortcodes which should be unique within a questionnaire (but not unique within the database hence they are not strictly an identity). I intended to make the shortcode a value object and wanted to include the business rule that it should be unique within the questionnaire but I am unsure how to ensure that. My understanding is that the value object should not access the repository or service layer so how does it find out if it is unique? Thanks for any help. Darren

    Read the article

  • SQL CHECK constraint to prevent date overlap

    - by Michael
    I have a table that describes which software versions were installed on a machine at various times: machine_id::integer, version::text, datefrom::timestamp, dateto::timestamp I'd like to do a constraint to ensure that no date ranges overlap, i.e. it is not possible to have multiple software versions installed on a machine at the same time. How can this be achieved in SQL? I am using PostgreSQL v8.4.

    Read the article

  • Combining the UNIQUE and CHECK constraints

    - by Bobby
    I have a table with columns a b and c, and if c is false then I only want to allow insertions if columns a and b are unique, but if c is true then a and b do not need to be unique. Example: There can only be one (foo, bar, false) in the table, but no limit on how many (foo, bar, true) there can be. I tried something like CONSTRAINT blah UNIQUE (a,b) AND CHECK (C is TRUE) but I can't figure out the correct syntax.

    Read the article

  • Postgresql: Implicit lock acquisition from foreign-key constraint evaluation

    - by fennec
    So, I'm being confused about foreign key constraint handling in Postgresql. (version 8.4.4, for what it's worth). We've got a couple of tables, mildly anonymized below: device: (id, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah x 50)… primary key on id whooooole bunch of other junk device_foo: (id, device_id, left, right) Foreign key (device_id) references device(id) on delete cascade; primary key on id btree index on 'left' and 'right' So I set out with two database windows to run some queries. db1> begin; lock table device in exclusive mode; db2> begin; update device_foo set left = left + 1; The db2 connection blocks. It seems odd to me that an update of the 'left' column on device_stuff should be affected by activity on the device table. But it is. In fact, if I go back to db1: db1> select * from device_stuff for update; *** deadlock occurs *** The pgsql log has the following: blah blah blah deadlock blah. CONTEXT: SQL statement "SELECT 1 FROM ONLY "public"."device" x WHERE "id" OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=) $1 FOR SHARE OF X: update device_foo set left = left + 1; I suppose I've got two issues: the first is that I don't understand the precise mechanism by which this sort of locking occurs. I have got a couple of useful queries to query pg_locks to see what sort of locks a statement invokes, but I haven't been able to observe this particular sort of locking when I run the update device_foo command in isolation. (Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, though.) I also can't find any documentation on the lock acquisition behavior of foreign-key constraint checks. All I have is a log message. Am I to infer from this that any change to a row will acquire an update lock on all the tables which it's foreign-keyed against? The second issue is that I'd like to find some way to make it not happen like that. I'm ending up with occasional deadlocks in the actual application. I'd like to be able to run big update statements that impact all rows on device_foo without acquiring a big lock on the device table. (There's a lot of access going on in the device table, and it's kind of an expensive lock to get.)

    Read the article

  • Increment non unique field during SQL insert

    - by phill
    I'm not sure how to word this cause I am a little confused at the moment, so bare with me while I attempt to explain, I have a table with the following fields: OrderLineID, OrderID, OrderLine, and a few other unimportant ones. OrderLineID is the primary key and is always unique(which isn't a problem), OrderID is a foreign key that isn't unique(also not a problem), and OrderLine is a value that is not unique in the table, but should be unique for any OrderIDs that are the same...so if that didn't make sense, perhaps a picture OrderLineID, OrderID, OrderLine 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 4 2 1 5 2 2 For all OrderIDs there is a unique OrderLine. I am trying to create an insert statement that gets the max OrderLine value for a specific OrderId so I can increment it, but it's not working so well and I could use a little help. What I have right now is below, I build the sql statement in a program and replace OrderID # with an actual value. I am pretty sure the problem is with the nested select statement, and incrementing the result, but I can't find any examples that do this since my google skills are weak apparently.... INSERT INTO tblOrderLine (OrderID, OrderLine) VALUES (<OrderID #>, (SELECT MAX(OrderLine) FROM tblOrderLine WHERE orderID = <same OrderID #>)+1) any help would be nice.

    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

  • Wordpress loop > unique loop renders slightly wrong results...

    - by Travis Neilson
    A few things to understand before my question will make sense: I use a hidden category called 'Unique' to specify if the post will use the single.php or a special one used for the unique ones. I want the index to act as a single: showing only one post, displaying next/prev post links, and comments also. I need the index.php to say if the post is in category 15 (unique) than <the_unique_content>, else; <the_default_content> My loop does all this, but the problem is that if the current post is unique, it also displays 1 additional post below the unique post. Here is the loop <?php $wp_query->is_single = true; ?> <?php $post_count = 0; ?> <?php if (have_posts()) : while (have_posts()) : the_post(); ?> <?php if ($post_count == 0) : ?> <?php if (in_category('15')) { ?> <?php the_content(); ?> <?php } else { ?> <?php the_content(); ?> <?php $post_count++; ?> Thanks for any help!

    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

  • Oracle Unique Indexes

    - by Melvin
    I was creating a new table today in 10g when I noticed an interesting behavior. Here is an example of what I did: CREATE TABLE test_table ( field_1 INTEGER PRIMARY KEY ); Oracle will by default, create a non-null unique index for the primary key. I double checked this. After a quick check, I find a unique index name SYS_C0065645. Everything is working as expected so far. Now I did this: CREATE TABLE test_table ( field_1 INTEGER, CONSTRAINT pk_test_table PRIMARY KEY (field_1) USING INDEX (CREATE INDEX idx_test_table_00 ON test_table (field_1))); After describing my newly created index idx_test_table_00, I see that it is non-unique. I tried to insert duplicate data into the table and was stopped by the primary key constraint, proving that the functionality has not been affected. It seems strange to me that Oracle would allow a non-unique index to be used for a primary key constraint. Why is this allowed?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >