pg.ddx.io  pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ferindo Middleton Jr <fmiddleton@verizon.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: redundancy in CHECK CONSTRAINTs
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:46:52 -0400
Message-ID: <43362BBC.1050301@verizon.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26530.1127620701@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <43361AB7.2020701@verizon.net>
	<26530.1127620701@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Thank you for your advice, Tom. I've re-done the table in my db using 
the schema you describe below. The is a need for the id field. Other 
tables in my applications use it to refer to any one intsystem/extsystem 
relationship and be able to provide users with one simple number to use 
to refer to them. Thank you.

Ferindo

Tom Lane wrote:
> Ferindo Middleton Jr <fmiddleton@verizon.net> writes:
>   
>> I have the following table:
>>     
>
>   
>> CREATE TABLE gyuktnine (
>>      id               SERIAL,
>>     intsystem      INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES yuksystems(id) CONSTRAINT 
>> int_cannot_equal_ext
>>                        CHECK (intsystem != extsystem),
>>     extsystem     INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES yuksystems(id) CONSTRAINT 
>> ext_cannot_equal_int
>>                         CHECK (extsystem != intsystem), 
>>     PRIMARY KEY (intsystem, extsystem)
>> );
>>     
>
>   
>> Is this redundant?
>>     
>
> Yes.  I think it's poor style too: a constraint referencing multiple
> columns should be written as a table constraint not a column constraint.
> That is, you ought to write
>
> CREATE TABLE gyuktnine (
>     id            SERIAL,
>     intsystem     INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES yuksystems(id),
>     extsystem     INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES yuksystems(id),
>     PRIMARY KEY (intsystem, extsystem),
>     CONSTRAINT int_cannot_equal_ext CHECK (intsystem != extsystem)
> );
>
> At least in the earlier versions of the SQL standard, it was actually
> illegal for a column constraint to reference any other columns.  I'm not
> sure if that's still true in the latest spec.  Postgres treats column
> constraints and table constraints alike, but other SQL databases are
> likely to be pickier.
>
> BTW, is there any actual need for the "id" column here, seeing that
> you have a natural primary key?
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>
>   



view thread (3+ messages)

Message-ID: <43362BBC.1050301@verizon.net>
Permalink:  ../43362BBC.1050301@verizon.net/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/43362BBC.1050301@verizon.net

 · 

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
  Cc: fmiddleton@verizon.net, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
  Subject: Re: redundancy in CHECK CONSTRAINTs
  In-Reply-To: <43362BBC.1050301@verizon.net>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox