Thank you for your advice, Tom. I've re-done the table in my db using
the schema you describe below. The is a need for the id field. Other
tables in my applications use it to refer to any one intsystem/extsystem
relationship and be able to provide users with one simple number to use
to refer to them. Thank you.
Ferindo
Tom Lane wrote:
Ferindo Middleton Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I have the following table:
CREATE TABLE gyuktnine (
id SERIAL,
intsystem INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES yuksystems(id) CONSTRAINT
int_cannot_equal_ext
CHECK (intsystem != extsystem),
extsystem INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES yuksystems(id) CONSTRAINT
ext_cannot_equal_int
CHECK (extsystem != intsystem),
PRIMARY KEY (intsystem, extsystem)
);
Is this redundant?
Yes. I think it's poor style too: a constraint referencing multiple
columns should be written as a table constraint not a column constraint.
That is, you ought to write
CREATE TABLE gyuktnine (
id SERIAL,
intsystem INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES yuksystems(id),
extsystem INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES yuksystems(id),
PRIMARY KEY (intsystem, extsystem),
CONSTRAINT int_cannot_equal_ext CHECK (intsystem != extsystem)
);
At least in the earlier versions of the SQL standard, it was actually
illegal for a column constraint to reference any other columns. I'm not
sure if that's still true in the latest spec. Postgres treats column
constraints and table constraints alike, but other SQL databases are
likely to be pickier.
BTW, is there any actual need for the "id" column here, seeing that
you have a natural primary key?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
