Yeah, I think Jonathan is right after all. He said it very well. Open mouth, insert foot. :-)
Michael Bayer wrote: > > 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
