On Feb 17, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
IMO, no. This is a broken table. Your db may allow it but from a
relational standpoint this is simply broken.
There are a couple ways you could fix it. One is simply a unique
key on (id, note). If you really wanted to allow duplicate texts,
adding a time_entered field and create the unique key over all
three might make sense. But designing for indistinguishable,
duplicate rows is broken; relational theory is set-based. Ignoring
this leads to ugliness and pain.
heh....id have said something similar but im on my anti-harsh meds
this week :) Ive no problem with SA letting people do what they want
but yah, primary keys are pretty important !
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Sqlalchemy-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
