Re: [sqlite] NOT NULL integer primary key
On Fri, 26 May 2017 18:04:14 +0200 (CEST) Ericwrote: > Why should the INSERT return an error? It is quite OK to, when > inserting a row, not specify a value for a NOT NULL column - as long > as the DDL has specified some way of constructing a value. The SQL in question is >>> insert into test values (null, 'row1'); There's a difference between not supplying a value, and specifying NULL: insert into test values (null, 'row1'); insert into test (data) values ('row1'); Specifying NULL for a non-null column is an error in every SQL DBMS with which I'm familar, whether or not a default is defined. > > It's a documented feature, so it's not a bug. But it is decidedly > > odd. > > The DDL specifies, in SQLite's own unique way, that a value will be > provided, and the application author knows that a value will be > provided, so where on earth is the problem? I don't think it's > peculiar at all It's peculiar because it doesn't say what it does. It's nonstandard, and nothing in the text of the DDL suggests a default exists. SQL-92 includes syntax to define a default; it uses the word DEFAULT. It's a problem because the behavior is in exception to what the standard specifies, the opposite of what is plainly expressed, and contrary to what any normal SQL DBMS does. The SQLite user has to be aware that non-NULL primary key "integer" columns have a special, implicit property: that NULL is accepted on INSERT, and converted to an indeterminate value. Put simply, how does the syntax id integer not null primary key suggest that an inserted NULL will be converted to a value? If a magic value generated silently for a primary key isn't peculiar enough, consider that it behaves differently on INSERT and UPDATE. Try to set the same column to NULL with INSERT, get a value; with UPDATE, it's an error. How many datatypes have that property? One. > the application author knows As I said, it's not a bug because it's well documented. But if you haven't studied the SQLite documentation in detail, you might be forgiven for thinking that INT PRIMARY KEY and INTEGER PRIMARY KEY mean the same thing. I'm not so sure every application author knows, but it's a safe bet many find out the hard way. --jkl ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] NOT NULL integer primary key
On Thu, 25 May 2017 21:47:20 -0400, "James K. Lowden"wrote: > On Fri, 19 May 2017 12:47:32 -0600 > "Keith Medcalf" wrote: >>On Thursday, 18 May, 2017 10:17, Paul Sanderson >> wrote: >>> Create table test (id integer not null primary key, data text); >>> insert into test values (null, 'row1'); >>> select * from test; >>> 1, row1 > >> Specifying NOT NULL on an INTEGER PRIMARY KEY (which is an alias for >> the RowID) is a redundant redundancy. The RowID cannot be null and >> must have a value. What on earth is a "redundant redundancy"? Never mind, it's irrelevant. > Maybe, but despite saying it twice, the INSERT succeeded, when it > should return an error. "INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL" is valid standard SQL syntax, and it is OK to specify "NOT NULL", if only because the primary key specification might be lower down the statement, as a table constraint or even (though not in SQLite) in a subsequent separate statement. This gives the DBMS a chance to do a consistency check for us, in case we said something equivalent to "INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NULL" (actually SQLite lets us get away with that). Why should the INSERT return an error? It is quite OK to, when inserting a row, not specify a value for a NOT NULL column - as long as the DDL has specified some way of constructing a value. The usual thing is the DEFAULT clause, SQL Server has IDENTITY, PostgreSQL has SERIAL ... . The point is that the DBMS will provide a value, and the NOT NULL will thereby be obeyed. > >> but should the not null constraint be obeyed? > >> Trying to insert a null value is how you get one generated for you. > > I just want to point out how peculiar that is. This is the test: > > 1. The datatype must be integer > 2. The column must be in the primary key > 3. The DBMS must be SQLite > > If the above are all true, then, and only then, the INSERT "succeeds" > in the sense that the data inserted into the database are neither what > the application supplied, nor what is expressed in the DDL. > > It's a documented feature, so it's not a bug. But it is decidedly > odd. The DDL specifies, in SQLite's own unique way, that a value will be provided, and the application author knows that a value will be provided, so where on earth is the problem? I don't think it's peculiar at all, not even SQLite's choice of syntax, which is just a duck choice - the RowID (an IMPLEMENTATION detail) looks just like an auto-increment integer, and behaves like an integer primary key, so if you want an auto-increment PK, overload the syntax to declare it and overload the implementation detail to make it work. Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] NOT NULL integer primary key
On Thursday, 18 May, 2017 10:17, Paul Sandersonwrote: > Create table test (id integer not null primary key, data text); > insert into test values (null, 'row1'); > select * from test; > 1, row1 > I know that if you provide a NULL value to a column define as integer > primary key that SQLite will provide a rowid, but should the not null > constraint be obeyed? Specifying NOT NULL on an INTEGER PRIMARY KEY (which is an alias for the RowID) is a redundant redundancy. The RowID cannot be null and must have a value. Trying to insert a null value is how you get one generated for you. It should probably be an error to specify "NULL" or "NOT NULL" (or anything else other than perhaps AUTOINCREMENT) with an INTEGER PRIMARY KEY (RowID alias). However, rather than do so the redundant redundancies and the illogical declarations (such as INTEGER PRIMARY KEY NULL or COLLATE clauses) are merely silently ignored. ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] NOT NULL integer primary key
Ahh being dull and in a hurry thanks Paul www.sandersonforensics.com skype: r3scue193 twitter: @sandersonforens Tel +44 (0)1326 572786 http://sandersonforensics.com/forum/content.php?195-SQLite-Forensic-Toolkit -Forensic Toolkit for SQLite email from a work address for a fully functional demo licence On 18 May 2017 at 17:26, Gwendal Rouéwrote: > > > Le 18 mai 2017 à 18:16, Paul Sanderson a > écrit : > > > > Is this a bug? > > > > Create table test (id integer not null primary key, data text); > > insert into test values (null, 'row1'); > > select * from test; > > 1, row1 > > > > I know that if you provide a NULL value to a column define as integer > > primary key that SQLite will provide a rowid, but should the not null > > constraint be obeyed? > > Hello Paul, > > The constraint is obeyed, since there is no NULL values in the database. > > To put it in another way: constraints are properties of the *database > content*, not of the *operations* on content. They're static, not dynamic. > > That's why constraints can be checked with PRAGMA > schema.foreign_key_check, which tells if the current state of the database > content is valid. > > That's also why the insert statement above succeeds, as long as the value > that is eventually inserted in the database is NOT NULL. > > Gwendal Roué > > ___ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
Re: [sqlite] NOT NULL integer primary key
> Le 18 mai 2017 à 18:16, Paul Sandersona écrit > : > > Is this a bug? > > Create table test (id integer not null primary key, data text); > insert into test values (null, 'row1'); > select * from test; > 1, row1 > > I know that if you provide a NULL value to a column define as integer > primary key that SQLite will provide a rowid, but should the not null > constraint be obeyed? Hello Paul, The constraint is obeyed, since there is no NULL values in the database. To put it in another way: constraints are properties of the *database content*, not of the *operations* on content. They're static, not dynamic. That's why constraints can be checked with PRAGMA schema.foreign_key_check, which tells if the current state of the database content is valid. That's also why the insert statement above succeeds, as long as the value that is eventually inserted in the database is NOT NULL. Gwendal Roué ___ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users