Cees,
>> Is there a way to cope with a table that does not have a primary key?
>
> Can you not just make all the columns belong to the primary key? That
> will work unless your schema allows you to create two identical
> records in the database (not something that is often useful).
I could do
On 5/30/07, David Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi There,
>
>
> Is there a way to cope with a table that does not have a primary key?
Can you not just make all the columns belong to the primary key? That
will work unless your schema allows you to create two identical
records in the databas
Hi There,
Is there a way to cope with a table that does not have a primary key?
DSL
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No
Really helpful, thanks very much. The answers are all better than I hoped
for!
> When auto_initialize()ing, RDBO will create most "reverse" one-to-many
> relationships. Read the docs for the "with_relationships" option
> here:
>
> http://search.cpan.org/dist/Rose-DB-Object/lib/Rose/DB/Object/
Me
On 5/29/07, James Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rose clearly cleverly deals with cascading deletes etc. regardless of
> whether foreign keys are used or not. But where foreign keys are in use, if
> I delete a parent table, does Rose know not to attempt the cascading delete
> itself and just
On May 29, 2007, at 7:09 AM, James Masters wrote:
> Also, from the documentation, it appears that the foreign keys can
> only
> specify "X to one" relationships. I suppose this is because
> foreign keys
> are specified from child to parent. Most of what I've been doing
> has been
> with "o
I'm think I'm going to have to change my MyISAM to InnoDB for foreign keys
(if I can pluck up the courage...)
Rose clearly cleverly deals with cascading deletes etc. regardless of
whether foreign keys are used or not. But where foreign keys are in use, if
I delete a parent table, does Rose know n
