Hi,
On Kam, 2004-03-04 at 12:49, Dave Newton wrote:
> 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.
How about:
<unique name="foo">
<unique-column name="SESSION_ID"/>
<unique-column name="SECTION_ID"/>
<unique-column name="ACTIVITY_ID"/>
</unique>
>
> 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
Regards,
Thomas Edwin Santosa
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
