Good idea, David, but, no, it hasn't changed and it is set to ON which should be right because there are no nulls in the two columns.
I've also discovered that I can't insert rows with both columns set to zero - not surprisingly, if the rule won't now allow that duplication. Another little snippet of info: in the past, ie: the pre-restore database, I could not have rows with zero in the Group_Number and either 2 or 3 in the Group_Sequence regardless of the fact that neither combination - 0 & 2 or 0 & 3 - did definitely not exist. 0 & 1 and 0 & anything 4 and above were fine... This didn't matter because there was no group zero - I only discovered it because I used it once to try and re-sequence a group by changing the group number to 0 to allow me to change the remaining sequence numbers. Any further suggestions gratefully accepted, Regards, Alastair. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M. Blocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 6:07 PM Subject: Re: Rule problem > Did your ZERO setting change? SET ZERO ON or OFF could affect the results > here if you leave a column blank. > > David Blocker > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Albert Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 8:36 AM > Subject: RE: Rule problem > > > > Alastair - when I have to force an FK I use a 0 "Unknown" and use zero as > the equivalent to IS NULL, and define the column as NOT NULL. I have found > over the years that this is a more foolproof method than allowing NULL FKs. > FWIW > > > > "Alastair Burr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > >This rule has worked correctly for months until I restored the database > from > > >a backup today: > > > > > >MESSAGE : Duplicate combination: Group Sequence > > > TABLE : Images Row is added or changed if condition SUCCEEDS > > > WHERE : NOT (( Images.Group_Number * 1000) + Images.Group_Sequence) IN > > > (select (( Images.Group_Number * 1000) + Images.Group_Sequence) > > > from Images where Group_Number > 0) > > > > > >Now it won't let me amend rows where the Group_Number and Group_Sequence > are > > >both zero. > > > > > >It is intended to ensure that I cannot have duplicate sequence numbers > where > > >there is a group number above zero. > > > > > >Both columns default to zero to avoid nulls so zero means no group. There > > >are many rows with no group so a constraint is not possible. > Group_Sequence > > >can be from 1 to 999 when there is a Group_Number. > > > > > >Can anybody see anything wrong with it or shed some light on why a > restore > > >might have affected it? > > > > > >Thanks in advance for any suggestions, > > >Regards, > > >Alastair. > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------- > > >A D B Burr, > > >St. Albans, UK. > > >---------------------------------- > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >---------------------------------- ================================================ TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES: Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l ================================================ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l ================================================ TO SEARCH ARCHIVES: http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/
