Re: constraints

Mathias, >The syntaxe is here, but the constraints seems not to be checked. Is this a bug >? i don't know ! >mysql> create table employee ( >-> name varchar(30), >-> salary numeric(10,2), >-> constraint check (salary > 0) >-> ); >Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.22 sec) 13.2.6 of the 5.0.4 manua

Re: constraints

>> The manual is your friend! I was trying to inform you but you were faster :o) An IF then insert in your application can do the trick. Mathias Selon Michael Stassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The manual is your friend! CHECK constraints are not supported in > mysql. "The CHECK clause is parsed

Re: constraints

The manual is your friend! CHECK constraints are not supported in mysql. "The CHECK clause is parsed but ignored by all storage engines." . Using your example, you can easily verify this with SHOW CREATE TABLE: mysql> SHOW CREATE TABLE emp

Re: constraints

Hi, The syntaxe is here, but the constraints seems not to be checked. Is this a bug ? i don't know ! mysql> create table employee ( -> name varchar(30), -> salary numeric(10,2), -> constraint check (salary > 0) -> ); Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.22 sec) mysql> my

Re: constraints

Are you sure this kind of constraint is supported in MySQL 4.1? I'm not saying they aren't, I just don't remember. Unless you're sure they are, you should check the manual. Rhino - Original Message - From: "Rodrigo Sakai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 6:49 PM Subje

Re: constraints within a table

Hi, > I have a table where I would like members of a uid field to be limited > by the range of values that are in another field. What I am looking for > would be taken care of with the enum() operator except I need the range > of values to be dynamic - because uid will change. I've been told tha

Re: Constraints under 3.23.55-nt

"Morten Gulbrandsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I use Version DBMS MySQL 3.23.55 runing under Windows 2000. > > I have coded this from a textbook; > === > > > C:\mysql\bin>type constraint.sql > USE company; > > DROP TABLE IF EXISTS EMPLOYEE; > > CREATE TABLE EMPLOYEE > ( > FNAME

Re: constraints and InnoDB

Dyego, - Original Message - From: "Dyego Souza do Carmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Mysql maillist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:44 PM Subject: constraints and InnoDB > Hi ! :D > >I would like you help me to solve the following proble

Re: constraints and InnoDB

> >Is there a way to create constraints that implements the rules I >need? > Not really. You would have to use deferrable constraints (checked at commit, not after statement) like in Oracle. For now Innodb doesn't support it. P.S. query,sql -- _/_/ _/_/_/ - Rafał Jan

Re: Constraints - Error or Bug????

Frank, please check with SHOW TABLE STATUS that the tables really are InnoDB type. Best regards, Heikki Tuuri Innobase Oy --- InnoDB - transactions, hot backup, and foreign key support for MySQL See http://www.innodb.com, download MySQL-Max from http://www.mysql.com - Original Message

Re: Constraints - Error or Bug???? - Part II

MySQL wrote: >Hi all, > >It seems that some is misunderstanding my problem, so i try to re-write my problem >again. > > >I just wonder. I have tried this example from www.mysql.org Doc. > >CREATE TABLE parent(id INT NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id)) TYPE=INNODB; >CREATE TABLE child(id INT, parent_id

Re: Constraints - Error or Bug????

Dear friend, Take a look,carefully, about how are create tables; All fields are INTeger type.Do a "select * from child;" to see what values are stored in tablesfor your curiosity. Good luck, Gelu _ G.NET SOFTWARE COMPANY Permanent e-mail ad

Re: constraints in InnoDB, or is 3.23.43b _really_ < 4.0.1?

arch 14, 2002 5:52 PM Subject: Re: constraints in InnoDB, or is 3.23.43b _really_ < 4.0.1? >At 01:57 2002-03-14, Heikki Tuuri wrote: >>Tomasz, >> >>are you sure you are running 4.0.1? In the rpm of 4.0.0 there were no >>foreign keys. >> >>I tested this on my

Re: constraints in InnoDB, or is 3.23.43b _really_ < 4.0.1?

At 07:22 2002-03-14, Heikki Tuuri wrote: >Tomasz, > >are you using a non-latin1 character set? No, didn't change the charset. As You can see from my reply to Victoria yesterday, will need to, eventually (for different reasons, though, not books), but right now I am in a proof-of-concept stag

Re: constraints in InnoDB, or is 3.23.43b _really_ < 4.0.1?

At 01:57 2002-03-14, Heikki Tuuri wrote: >Tomasz, > >are you sure you are running 4.0.1? In the rpm of 4.0.0 there were no >foreign keys. > >I tested this on mysql-max-4.0.1, and it worked. Well... [root@flow11 httpd]# mysqladmin -p version Enter password: mysqladmin Ver 8.23 Distrib 4.0.1-alpha

Re: constraints in InnoDB, or is 3.23.43b _really_ < 4.0.1?

om for the online manual and latest news on InnoDB -Original Message- From: Heikki Tuuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:57 AM Subject: Re: constraints in InnoDB, or is 3.23.43b _really_ < 4.0.1? >Tomasz, >

Re: constraints in InnoDB, or is 3.23.43b _really_ < 4.0.1?

|| InnoDB free: 700416 kB | ++++--++-+-- ---+--+---++-+-- ---+ ++-- -+ 2 rows in set (0.03 sec) mysql> -Original Message- From: Tomasz Korycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: mailing.database.mysql Date: Thursday, March 14, 2002 6:53 AM Subject: Re: constraint

Re: constraints in InnoDB, or is 3.23.43b _really_ < 4.0.1?

At 16:57 2002-03-13, Rick Flower wrote: >Tomasz writes: > >>> >From section 16 of http://www.innodb.com/ibman.html you find detailed >>>information about every InnoDB version. For example, 4.0.1 == 3.23.47. >>> >>>Foreign keys should work in 4.0.1. > >>Hmmm... That's what I read, too. And afte

Re: constraints in InnoDB, or is 3.23.43b _really_ < 4.0.1?

Tomasz writes: >> >From section 16 of http://www.innodb.com/ibman.html you find detailed >>information about every InnoDB version. For example, 4.0.1 == 3.23.47. >> >>Foreign keys should work in 4.0.1. >Hmmm... That's what I read, too. And after several unsuccesful attempts >to create my ow

Re: constraints in InnoDB, or is 3.23.43b _really_ < 4.0.1?

At 08:13 2002-03-13, Heikki Tuuri wrote: >Tomasz, > >InnoDB in 3.23 and 4.0 is the same codebase. InnoDB versions are best >counted from the 3.23 series, because they appear more frequently. I am >sorry that this is confusing. > >MySQL/InnoDB-3.23.50 has not been released yet. It will probably be

Re: constraints in InnoDB, or is 3.23.43b _really_ < 4.0.1?

Tomasz, InnoDB in 3.23 and 4.0 is the same codebase. InnoDB versions are best counted from the 3.23 series, because they appear more frequently. I am sorry that this is confusing. MySQL/InnoDB-3.23.50 has not been released yet. It will probably be out at the end of March. >From section 16 of ht