On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 23:55, Jeff Cox wrote: > Unless I am missing something, <unique> only makes the individual field > unique. What I need is the combination to be unique. In other words... > > If > SESSION_ID = 10 > SECTION_ID = 15 > ACTIVITY_ID = 25 > > then 10, 15, and 25 can't be again used together.. but > > SESSION_ID = 10 > SECTION_ID = 15 > ACTIVITY_ID = 30 > > Would work because even though SESSION_ID and SECTION_ID have been 10 > and 15 before, they have not been in combination with 30.
Oh, I see what you mean now. Still don't understand why, though ;) In any case, you'd need to write your own logic to handle this case, as it isn't really that common. It seems like perhaps you might want to break up the tables a bit, maybe rethink the mapping a bit. IOW, it looks like you have a think called a session, a section, and an activity. Rather than mapping them all in one table, have an activity table that has an activity_id (unique, primary key) and session and section ids that point into the session and section tables. Without knowing what you're actually trying to accomplish it's tough ;) Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
