[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-789?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12840367#action_12840367
 ] 

Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-789:
-------------------------------------

So the intention here is that the redundant constraint be "forgotten" as far as 
I understand. What do other database do with repect to alter? If a primary 
constraint is dropped, would some databases let the unique constraint still 
apply? Is there uniformity in behavior here?

> Usability issue: "Constraints have the  same  set of columns"
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-789
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-789
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: SQL
>            Reporter: Øystein Grøvlen
>            Assignee: Bryan Pendleton
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: PrimaryImpliesUnique.diff
>
>
> Legolas Woodland reported on derby-user that derby return errors like :
> org.apache.derby.client.am.SqlException:                    Constraints
> 'SQL060103004635123'  and 'SQL060103004635121'  have the  same  set of
> columns, which is not allowed.
> He got this when creating a table like this:
> create  table  WEBSITES (USERID  integer  not  null unique,  WEBSITEID
> bigint  not  null unique,  DOMAINNAME  varchar(255)  not null  unique,
> DESCRIPTION  varchar(255),  PPVIEW   double,  PPCLICK  double,  PPWEEK
> double, totalClick bigint,  totalView bigint, active smallint, primary
> key (WEBSITEID));
> Omitting the unique specifier made things work. 
> I think this is a usability issue.   At least, one should not present names 
> to the user, that has been generated internally.  Instead, it would be 
> helpful if the names of the columns involved was mentioned. I see two ways to 
> solve this:
> 1. Return error that says that  duplicate contraints on the following columns 
> are not allowed.
> 2. Allow this and use same index for both constraints.  (I guess dropping 
> constraints will be more complicated in this case since one will have to 
> check if other constraints are using the same index.)

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to