Re: [sqlite] basic table level stuff

2004-01-21 Thread David M. Cook
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:22:29AM -0500, jim wrote: > for some reason they are trying to name the constraint. no idea why. That determines the name of the index that will be used to implement the constraint. > It appears sqlitemanager doesn't use it. Yup, it looks like sqlite ignores the cons

RE: [sqlite] basic table level stuff

2004-01-21 Thread jim
>>I am also wondering about the constraint in the column-def like column-def ::= name [type] [[CONSTRAINT name] column- >>constraint]* I thought about this some more. since constraint shows up in blue it is reserved. for some reason they are trying to name the constraint. no idea why. It appear

RE: [sqlite] basic table level stuff

2004-01-20 Thread jim
wish to make my own. thanks for helping me dave, marvin -Original Message- From: David M. Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [sqlite] basic table level stuff On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 05:15:15PM -0500, jim wrote

Re: [sqlite] basic table level stuff

2004-01-20 Thread David M. Cook
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 05:15:15PM -0500, jim wrote: > if they already have these constraints at the column level, > why do they need them a second time as in ... > name [type] [[CONSTRAINT name] column-constraint]* Because you may want a composite primary key or set of unique columns. A simple

[sqlite] basic table level stuff

2004-01-20 Thread jim
Hi- One thing that is puzzling me is the contstraint below that isnt a column constraint. constraint ::=PRIMARY KEY ( name [, name]* ) [ conflict-clause ]| UNIQUE ( name [, name]* ) [ conflict-clause ] | CHECK ( expr ) [ conflict-clause ] if they already have these constraints at the column level