And if you don't want the overhead of a stored computed column you could use
a view, at least, it seems to work for me!

Regards,
Alastair.

----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:00 PM
Subject: RE:


> David, that did the trick!
>
> I created a computed column c1 which is ssn + ctxt(task_id) +
> ctxt(qual_type)
>
> Then a standard rule testing for uniqueness with FAIL
>
> c2 IN (select c1 from qualified_detail t1 where t1.c1 =
qualified_detail.c1)
>
>
> Thanks! I never thought of using a computed column in a rule..
>
> Charles Sikora
> Coordinator, Gas Storage
> Manlove Field
> Peoples Energy Corporation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David M. Blocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re:
>
>
> Charles
>
> <<WHERE qual_type NOT IN (select ssn task_id qual_type FROM
qualified_detail
> t1 WHERE t1.ssn = qualified_detail.ssn AND t1.task_id =
> qualified_detail.task_id AND  t1.qual_type = 1)  >>
>
> I suspect that the problem is that you are comparing the column qual_type
in
> the left side of your where clause with THREE columns in the sub-select.
>
> I have not actually tried this, but what about creating a computed column
> that joins the columns ssn task_id and qual_type together and using that
> combination in both parts of the WHERE clause?
>
> David Blocker
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Downall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "RBase List Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:18 AM
>
>
> > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Wed Oct  2 10:53:40 2002
> > Received: from pecorp.com (relay.pecorp.com [208.216.27.52])
> > by sonet.rxcpi.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA30429
> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:53:40 -0400
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Received: from  ([10.10.40.40])
> > by im-relay.pecorp.com with ESMTP ;
> > Wed, 02 Oct 2002 09:55:55 -0500 (CDT)
> > Received: by relay.pecorp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
> > id <SS3V3J2A>; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:01:44 -0500
> > Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Rules in RBW6.5++
> > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:01:35 -0500
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >
> > I am trying to write a rule that accomplishes the following goal:
> >
> > Rule will prevent a row from being added to the table Qualified_Detail
> under
> > the following condition:
> >
> > if an emp_id, task_id, and qual_type = 1 exist, then do not allow
> > the row to be added.
> >
> > This means that for that same emp_id and task_id, that if qual_type =
> > something other than 1, the row should be added.
> >
> > Already existing row:
> > empid =124
> > task_id =1
> > qual_type = 1
> > cladode = 8/1/2002
> >
> > Do not allow the following to be added:
> >
> > empid = 124
> > task_id = 1
> > qual_type = 1
> > qual_date = 8/5/2002
> >
> > BUT DO allow the following to be added:
> >
> > empid = 124
> > task_id = 1
> > qual_type = 2
> > qual_date = 8/5/2002
> >
> >
> > The rule I wrote is to Add/modify if the select fails
> >
> > WHERE qual_type NOT IN (select ssn task_id qual_type FROM
qualified_detail
> > t1 WHERE t1.ssn = qualified_detail.ssn AND t1.task_id =
> qualified_detail.task_id AND
> > t1.qual_type = 1)
> >
> > Otherwise display message "Employee has already been initially qualified
> on
> > this task"
> >
> > What is happening now is that any attempt to insert a row into the table
> is
> > failing under this rule, regardless of what the qual_type is..
> >
> > I know how to write a rule testing for uniqueness (which is basically
what
> > this is), but throwing the qual_type = 1 is perhaps throwing a wrench
into
> > things.
> >
> > Thanks for any assistance ..
> >
> >
> > Charles Sikora
> > Coordinator, Gas Storage
> > Manlove Field
> > Peoples Energy Corporation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ================================================
> > TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES:
> > Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l
> > ================================================
> > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l
> > ================================================
> > TO SEARCH ARCHIVES:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/
> >
>
>
> ================================================
> TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES:
> Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l
> ================================================
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l
> ================================================
> TO SEARCH ARCHIVES:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/
> ================================================
> TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES:
> Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l
> ================================================
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l
> ================================================
> TO SEARCH ARCHIVES:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/

================================================
TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES:
Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l
================================================
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l
================================================
TO SEARCH ARCHIVES:
http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/
  • RE: c . sikora
    • Re: David M. Blocker
    • Alastair Burr

Reply via email to