On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 04:48, Aitor Imaz wrote: > The problem > is that although I know the number of elements the domain should > contain as of today (two), I can't really tell if this number is going > to grow in the future (five or six maximum, I'd say). AFAIK, this > would require me to drop the domain and recreate it with the new set > of values, which I want to avoid if the database is in production. > Would an ordinary table + referential integrity be a better solution > than a domain in this case?
I think so, yes. > Can domains be altered without needing to > drop them? Not according to the manual... You might want to look at a regular constraint, if you are sure you'll only have a few values to check. I think this is closer to what you need. Here's an example for WebSQL: DROP TABLE ctest // CREATE TABLE ctest ( theKey INT DEFAULT SERIAL PRIMARY KEY, theTest INT NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT testCons CHECK theTest IN (2,4) ) // INSERT INTO ctest VALUES (DEFAULT, 4) // // this next one will fail INSERT INTO ctest VALUES (DEFAULT, 6) // ALTER TABLE ctest ALTER CONSTRAINT testCons CHECK theTest IN (2,4,6) // INSERT INTO ctest VALUES (DEFAULT, 6) -- Richard Barrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ sapdb.general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
