Creating a check constraint with a join
Hi,
is it possible to create a check constraint under the data models using a join on lookup table?
I would like to filter out tuples in the target table involving conditions from an another table.
Regards
Numbers has checkable boxes but they don't work once exported to PDF.
And there is iBooks Author as well which can create ePubs.
If it is just for yourself on your Mac I highly recommend Qu-s.
Peter
Similar Messages
-
How to create this check constraint
create table emplt
( emplt_pk number,
indvl_pk number,
start_dt date,
end_dt date,
lct_fl char(1),
sup_fl char(1),
br_pk number,
nro_pk number,
default_fl char(1) default 'N' );
INSERT INTO emplt
values(
1001, 101, to_date('01-01-2005', 'MM-DD-YYYY' ), NULL, 'Y','N',123,NULL,NULL );
INSERT INTO emplt
values(
1002, 101, to_date('02-01-2005', 'MM-DD-YYYY' ), NULL, 'Y','N',NULL,0001,NULL );
INSERT INTO emplt
values(
1003, 102, to_date('02-01-2005', 'MM-DD-YYYY' ), NULL, 'Y','N',NULL,0001,NULL );
Is it possible to create a check constraint on this table that enforces that for a given indvl_pk, br_pk and nro_pk
there is only one row with dflt_fl = 'Y'?
Thanks in advance!Say,
SQL> create unique index empli_ui on emplt(case default_fl when 'Y' then indvl_pk end,
2 case default_fl when 'Y' then br_pk end,
3 case default_fl when 'Y' then nro_pk end
4 )
5 /
 
Index created.
 
SQL> insert into emplt (indvl_pk,br_pk,nro_pk,default_fl)
2 values(1,2,3,'J');
 
1 row created.
 
SQL> insert into emplt (indvl_pk,br_pk,nro_pk,default_fl)
2 values(1,2,3,'J');
 
1 row created.
 
SQL> insert into emplt (indvl_pk,br_pk,nro_pk,default_fl)
2 values(3,2,1,'A');
 
1 row created.
 
SQL>
SQL> insert into emplt (indvl_pk,br_pk,nro_pk,default_fl)
2 values(3,2,1,'A');
 
1 row created.
 
SQL> insert into emplt (indvl_pk,br_pk,nro_pk,default_fl)
2 values(3,2,1,'Y');
 
1 row created.
 
SQL>
SQL> insert into emplt (indvl_pk,br_pk,nro_pk,default_fl)
2 values(3,2,1,'Y');
insert into emplt (indvl_pk,br_pk,nro_pk,default_fl)
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00001: unique constraint (SCOTT.EMPLI_UI) violated
 
SQL> insert into emplt (indvl_pk,br_pk,nro_pk,default_fl)
2 values(1,2,3,'Y');
 
1 row created.
 
SQL> insert into emplt (indvl_pk,br_pk,nro_pk,default_fl)
2 values(1,2,3,'Y');
insert into emplt (indvl_pk,br_pk,nro_pk,default_fl)
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00001: unique constraint (SCOTT.EMPLI_UI) violatedRgds. -
How to create a check box with an X
Hi,
How do you create a check box with an X as apposed to a tick?
ThanksGo to the check box's properties and in the Options tab choose "Cross" as the check box style.
-
10g 10.2.0.1.0 - Check Constraint with negative values possibly BUG.
Hello,
Why this doesn't work ?
create table a (b numeric(1));
alter table a
add constraint b CHECK (b in (0, 1, -1)) ENABLE;
select * from a where b = -1;
I get the following error: java.sql.SQLException: No more data to read from socket
- Through the jdbc client. It happens with the Oracle Client too.
When i change my check constraint to this:
alter table a
add constraint b CHECK (b in (-1, 0, 1)) ENABLE;
It works.
It's a (known) bug ?
Regards,
Franciscohi dear,
I want to upgrade my OMS server 10.2.0.1 to 10.2.0.5
I downloaded the patch 10.2.0.5 and read the README.txt
Part of the README is:
1.2 Enter the following command to extract the installation files:
$ unzip GridControl_10.2.0.5_<platform name>.zip
This command extracts the following files and directory:
|- p3731593_10205_<platform name>.zip
|- 3731596.zip
|- 3822442.zip
|- README.txt
|- doc/
NOTE: <platform name> will be "LINUX" or "Win32" depending on the platform for which you are installing. For installing Enterprise Manager 10g Grid Control Release 5 (10.2.0.5), refer to the Release Notes available in the "doc" directory.
- p3731593_10205_<platform name>.zip is the ZIP file that contains 10.2.0.5 patch set software.
This zip can be used for:
- Upgrading Oracle Management Service Release 2 (10.2.0.x) or higher to Oracle Management Service Release 5 (10.2.0.5)
- Upgrading Oracle Management Repository (sysman schema)
- Upgrading Oracle Management Agent on the host where OMS is running.
NOTE: This will not upgrade the database in which the Management Repository (sysman schema) resides.
- 3731596.zip is for patching Management Agent by staging the patch set. To understand how you can apply the Management Agent 10.2.0.5 patch set, refer to method 2 described in section 4.3.3 "Upgrading Management Agent - Multiple Hosts at a Time" of the Release Notes. The Release Notes can be found in the "doc" directory.
- 3822442.zip is for patching Management Agent by distributing the full patch set. To understand how to apply the Management Agent 10.2.0.5 patch set, refer to method 1 described in section 4.3.3 "Upgrading Management Agent - Multiple Hosts at a Time" of the Release Notes. The Release Notes can be found in the "doc" directory.3731596.zip - by staging
3822442.zip - by distributing
Does the two above have the same function or purpose?
I can not understand the meaning of the two :( . which do you think is the right one for my setup?
Thanks a lot -
How to modify a CHECK constraint.
We need to modify a check constraint to allow new values. Is there a way we can modify the existing constraint or should we drop and recreate including new values.
Example:
We have a table SLOG and SNO is a column accepting numeric values. Currently there is a constraint on this column so that it accepts values of 1,2,3,4. Now I want to insert a value of 5 to this column. Since there is a CHECK constraint on this column it prevents the value of 5.
So the constraint needs to be modified. Is there a way we can modify the constraint using a DDL command (like ALTER TABLE) or should I drop and re create the constraint.
Thanks in advance.
BalajiHello,
Is there a way we can modify the constraint using a DDL command You can just MODIFY the state of your constraint ( constraint_state ).
So, if you want to modify the definition of your constraint you have to drop and create the CHECK constraint with its new definition.
Sorry, when I was writing my post, I didn't see the question was already answered.
Best regards,
Jean-Valentin
Edited by: Lubiez Jean-Valentin on Jul 11, 2010 11:04 AM -
Regexp_like with check constraint
Hi all,
My requirement is User should not enter the data like ( ½, ¼,...).
I have created table with check constraint with the following syntax:
CREATE TABLE mytest (c1 VARCHAR2(20),
CHECK (REGEXP_LIKE(c1,'^[[:alnum:]+[:digit:]+[!@#]]+$')));
The above means, except alphanumeric, digits, and keyboard characters should allow. But it is not allowing any characters.
Please help me, any mistake in the above syntax.
Thanks
ManoHi, Mano,
user533671 wrote:
Hi all,
My requirement is User should not enter the data like ( ½, ¼,...).
I have created table with check constraint with the following syntax:That's a couple of examples of values that are not allowed. Now give some examples of values that are allowed, and the reasons why each are allowe or not.
For example, is 'GREEN/BLUE', with a slash between letters, allowed? How about '1/' with no number after the slash?
>
CREATE TABLE mytest (c1 VARCHAR2(20),
CHECK (REGEXP_LIKE(c1,'^[[:alnum:]+[:digit:]+[!@#]]+$')));
The above means, except alphanumeric, digits, and keyboard characters should allow. But it is not allowing any characters.
Please help me, any mistake in the above syntax.You're using square brackets inside square brackets. If you really need to do that, then the right ']' must be the first character listed.
Post 5 or 10 INSERT statements. Tell which INSERTs should work, and which ones should fail because of the CHECK constraint, and explain why in each case. -
Using a function in a check constraint
Hi,
I created a domain table(id, code, domain_code, description) and foreign keys to this table. To ensure that a valid domain is put in the column I created a function that returns a boolean and has two parameters (id and domain_code). It returns true if the id and domain belong together.
I want to know if it is possible to create a check constraint which validates the data in the refering table with the data in the domain table.
Does anyone know if this is possible? Or do I have to use a db-trigger?
Regards,
RomanoIt still sounds like all you need is a foreign key constraint. Please see the example below, based on your revised criteria.
scott@ORA92> create table domain
2 (id number,
3 code number,
4 domain_code number,
5 constraint domain_pk primary key (id),
6 constraint domain_uk unique (code, domain_code))
7 /
Table created.
scott@ORA92> insert into domain values (1, 10, 2)
2 /
1 row created.
scott@ORA92> create table domain_values_table
2 (id number,
3 domain_code number,
4 constraint domain_values_table_uk unique (id, domain_code))
5 /
Table created.
scott@ORA92> insert into domain_values_table values (1, 2)
2 /
1 row created.
scott@ORA92> commit
2 /
Commit complete.
scott@ORA92> create table referring
2 (id number,
3 domain_code number,
4 status number,
5 constraint referring_fk foreign key (status)
6 references domain (id),
7 constraint referring_fk2 foreign key (id, domain_code)
8 references domain_values_table (id, domain_code))
9 /
Table created.
scott@ORA92> insert into referring values (1, 2, null)
2 /
1 row created.
scott@ORA92> insert into referring values (3, 4, null)
2 /
insert into referring values (3, 4, null)
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-02291: integrity constraint (SCOTT.REFERRING_FK2) violated - parent key not found -
Hi,
This is an 'interesting' bug:
create table mytable (
id number,
status number,
constraint mytable_pk primary key (id)
insert into mytable (id, status) values (1, 0);
insert into mytable (id, status) values (2, -1);
On XE (10.2.0.1) and 10.2.0.4:
Following command gives the expected ORA-02293 error (using string values instead of numbers): alter table mytable add constraint mytable_status_chk check (status in ('0', '1'));
BUT no error with the following command: alter table mytable add constraint mytable_status_chk check (status in ('-1', '0', '1'));
On XE:
The query select * from mytable where status=0 returns no records until the constraint is dropped again !
Best regards,
Serge
Edited by: sergeko on Nov 19, 2010 11:19 AM
Edited by: sergeko on Nov 19, 2010 11:21 AMI don't have access to any 10.x or XE currently and cannot reproduce on EE 9.2.0.9 or 11.1.0.6.
It's possible that you're running into an optimizer issue with the constraint.
This might be visible if you run an explain plan on the statement, get the execution plan via dbms_xplan.display and check the predicates section both with and without the constraint.
I take it that you don't get the problem if you use a check constraint with numbers not strings.
I wonder also whether it makes a difference if you declare status as not null.
Edited by: DomBrooks on Nov 19, 2010 10:44 AM -
Hi I've got a problem and was wondering if anyone could shed some light on the problem.
Recently we started using designer 10g. When I generate a table using "generate database from server model" all the columns which are defined by a domain and have a check constraint, due to the specified values in the domain, are no longer part of the create statement of the table. Designer seems to put them in the constraint file as part of an alter table along with a weird name.
Is it possible, as in designer 2000, to make the check constraint part of the create statement in 10g and making it a sys constraint ? And how ?
I've been looking around but can't seem to find the solution (or the problem causing it).
Thnx for any help on the subject.Well we are planning to migrate our old designer (designer 2000) to the 10g version. One of the things that was possible in designer 2000 was defining a domain for a column and when you generated the SQL DDL it would generate a check constraint but as part of the create table statement.
eg:
type VARCHAR2(2) NOT NULL CHECK ( opvolging_type IN 'VC' , 'NL' , 'WW' , 'LB' ) ),
The check constraint would then be defined as a check constraint with name SYS...
Apparently some ppl at my company do not want to use explicit names for check constraints and they were wondering if it was at all possible to make them part of the create table script again. -
Check lot 0003 is full create new check lot.
Hi,
when i made a payment through F-58 sytem promt me message "check lot 0003 is full create new check lot".
i have checked that in FCHI 0003 lot no is created. but even system through this message.
after that i delete this 0003 check lot and create 0004 check lot with same check numbers.
and start doing payment at this movement system doen't shows me any message.
can any one reply and clear why it is so. why the system show me message with check lot no 0003 even with both lot no's i select the same check no's
RegardsHi Kuldeep
My question is how were you able to delete the check lot when the checks have been used.
The system should have thrown you an error.
srikanth. -
Check Register with Payment Program RFoedi1
We are using the payment program RFOEDI1 to for automatic payments using payment method C. This program does not have a place specify the check lot like RFFOUS_C.
How do we check register created for these payments. I ahve created a check lot with payment.
Is there any piece of config. to be done.
Thanks in Advance.
VineetYou can do the following.
1. Enter transaction F110.
2. Under parameters tab, enter C as payment method.
3. Under print out/data medium, use RFFOUS_C and variant
for that program. Sometimes, your company could be
using a customized version of this program.
Hope this helps -
SQL*Modeler forgets check constraint names
SQL*Modeler Version 2.0.0. Build 584
If I create named check constraints under the Relational Model/Tables/Table level Constraints then generate the model I have the constraints correctly named. Exit the model and reload, the constraints appear to be correct but when I look at the physical model under tables/table check constraints I see generated names such as TCC4, TCC5 etc.
At this point I can change the name but this is not stored it is just thown away.
If I go back to Relational Model/Tables/Table level Constraints and simply Apply no changes then the constraint names appear correctly in the generated model. However, I have many tables and this is not a practial solution each time I generate the model.Hi Ian,
thanks for feedback. Fix will be available in next release.
Philip -
Is it possible to create a dynamic(with a select) check constraint?
create table a (col_to_be_coded_fora number);
create table b (col_to_be_coded_forb number);
create table c (col_name varchar2(20), col_code number, col_desc varchar2(20));
insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 1, 'active');
insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 2, 'de-active');
insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 3, 'pending');
insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_forb', 10, 'school');
insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_forb', 20, 'hospital');
insert into a values ( 1); -- meaning 'active' for table a, column col_to_be_coded_fora, can go in
insert into a values (10); -- meaning nothing for table a, column col_to_be_coded_fora, must give error
insert into b values ( 1); -- meaning nothing for table b, column col_to_be_coded_forb, must give error
insert into b values (10); -- meaning 'school' for table b, column col_to_be_coded_fora, can go in
I know i can handle this problem with dividing table c into to tables and creating foreign key relationship.
in this demo case i have only a and b, 2 tables but i want to encode thousands of tables with a table like c.
İs it possible to create a dynamic check constraint on a table which selects c table for the inputs that have permision?
Or do i have to use after insert, update triggers on table a and b to ensure this functionality?
Is there a smarter implementation for this need, may be a design change?
Thank you,
Kind regards.
TonguçHi Tonguç,
A small design change makes it possible to do this with simple foreign key constraints.
I would do something like:
ual303@ORKDEV01> CREATE TABLE c (
2 col_name VARCHAR2(20),
3 col_code NUMBER,
4 col_desc VARCHAR2(20),
5 PRIMARY KEY (col_name, col_code)
6 );
Tabel is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> CREATE TABLE a (
2 col_to_be_coded_fora NUMBER PRIMARY KEY,
3 col_name VARCHAR2(20) DEFAULT 'col_to_be_coded_fora' CHECK (col_name = 'col_to_be_coded_fora'),
4 FOREIGN KEY (col_name, col_to_be_coded_fora) REFERENCES c
5 );
Tabel is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> CREATE TABLE b (
2 col_to_be_coded_forb NUMBER PRIMARY KEY,
3 col_name VARCHAR2(20) DEFAULT 'col_to_be_coded_forb' CHECK (col_name = 'col_to_be_coded_forb'),
4 FOREIGN KEY (col_name, col_to_be_coded_forb) REFERENCES c
5 );
Tabel is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 1, 'active');
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 2, 'de-active');
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_fora', 3, 'pending');
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_forb', 10, 'school');
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into c values ('col_to_be_coded_forb', 20, 'hospital');
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> -- meaning 'active' for table a, column col_to_be_coded_fora, can go in
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into a(col_to_be_coded_fora) values ( 1);
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01> -- meaning nothing for table a, column col_to_be_coded_fora, must give error
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into a(col_to_be_coded_fora) values (10);
insert into a(col_to_be_coded_fora) values (10)
FOUT in regel 1:
.ORA-02291: integrity constraint (UAL303.SYS_C0033537) violated - parent key not found
ual303@ORKDEV01> -- meaning nothing for table b, column col_to_be_coded_forb, must give error
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into b(col_to_be_coded_forb) values ( 1);
insert into b(col_to_be_coded_forb) values ( 1)
FOUT in regel 1:
.ORA-02291: integrity constraint (UAL303.SYS_C0033540) violated - parent key not found
ual303@ORKDEV01> -- meaning 'school' for table b, column col_to_be_coded_fora, can go in
ual303@ORKDEV01> insert into b(col_to_be_coded_forb) values (10);
1 rij is aangemaakt.
ual303@ORKDEV01>Cheers,
Colin -
Peculiar problem in oracle 10g on AIX 5.3.0 With Check constraints
Hi Every One,
I am facing peculiar problem in oracle 10.2.0.1.0,AIX 5.3.0. I created table with check constraints like this
create table test1 (name nvarchar2(1),check (name in('Y','N')));
SQL> create table test1 (name nvarchar2(1),check (name in('Y','N')));
Table created.
SQL> insert into test1 values ('Y');
1 row created.
SQL> COMMIT;
SQL> select from test1 where name = 'Y';* Why this statement is n't working
no rows selected
SQL> select * from test1;
N
Y
ANOTHER INTERSTING ONE IS
SQL> select * from test1 where name in('Y'); Why this statement is n't working
no rows selected
SQL> select * from test1 where name in('Y','Y'); it's working
N
Y
SQL> select * from test1 where name in('','Y'); it's working
N
Y
SQL> select * from test1 where name in('7','Y'); it's working
N
Y
Like
SQL> select * from test1 where name like 'Y'; it's not working
no rows selected
I created a table without check constraints
SQL> create table test2 (name nvarchar2(1));
Table created.
SQL> insert into test2 values ('Y');
1 row created.
SQL> select * from test2;
N
Y
SQL> select * from test2 where name ='Y'; it's working
N
Y
SQL> select * from test2 where name like 'Y'; it's working
N
Y
Database Details
NLS_LANGUAGE AMERICAN
NLS_TERRITORY AMERICA
NLS_CURRENCY $
NLS_ISO_CURRENCY AMERICA
NLS_NUMERIC_CHARACTERS .,
NLS_CHARACTERSET WE8MSWIN1252
NLS_CALENDAR GREGORIAN
NLS_DATE_FORMAT DD-MON-RR
NLS_DATE_LANGUAGE AMERICAN
NLS_SORT BINARY
NLS_TIME_FORMAT HH.MI.SSXFF AM
PARAMETER VALUE
NLS_TIMESTAMP_FORMAT DD-MON-RR HH.MI.SSXFF AM
NLS_TIME_TZ_FORMAT HH.MI.SSXFF AM TZR
NLS_TIMESTAMP_TZ_FORMAT DD-MON-RR HH.MI.SSXFF AM TZR
NLS_DUAL_CURRENCY $
NLS_COMP BINARY
NLS_LENGTH_SEMANTICS BYTE
NLS_NCHAR_CONV_EXCP FALSE
NLS_NCHAR_CHARACTERSET AL16UTF16
NLS_RDBMS_VERSION 10.2.0.1.0
Why it's happening. Whehter check constraint is valid or not in Equallity operator and like and in .
Whereever we using single character column with check constraint,it's working with Equality operator and like and in.
IT'S WORKING FINE WITHOUT CHECK CONSTRAINTS.WE HAVE TWO AIX MACHINES WITH ORACLE10G.THE SAME PROBLEM OCCURING IN TWO MACHINES
PLEASE HELP ME .
THANK YOU,
WITH REGARDS,
N.VINODHh
Edited by: user3266490 on Dec 3, 2008 2:30 AM -
EA2: Code is generated for only one column with Domain check constraint.
I created a Domain with a Value List (Y or N - Yes or No) and used that domain for two columns in the same table. But for only one column (the last one) the check appears in the generated DDL.
After I enabled the "Use Domain Constraints" both checks appear in the DDL, but one as an inline check constraint and one as an "Alter table add contraint.."
Once I changed the naming Template for the check constraint, both constraints are generated as an Alter table clause. The inline check constraint is only generated when the name of the constraint (according to the template) is too long. It would be nice if I could choose if I want an inline or a separate check constraint definition.
Edited by: Roel on Nov 23, 2010 11:55 AM
Edited by: Roel on Nov 23, 2010 12:02 PMI logged ER for that
Philip
Maybe you are looking for
-
Windows 8 Upgrade Assistant failed on Satellite P775
I tried running the Windows 8 Upgrade Assistant on my Satellite P775. It started by displaying Checking Components; download Windows 8 Components data. Reading Components. Got component TOSHIBA Wireless LAN Indicator ... etc ... Got Component TOSHIBA
-
I had created two photo albums on my ipad, by transferring photos from my hp laptop. I want to make space available on my ipad by deleting these photos, but the same hp laptop is no more with me. How do I delete these photos?
-
XMLReader throws NullPointerException
have developed a CSV to XML parser using a JAXP with SAX Events to parse the CSV file into a DOM tree. Well inside the parse() method I have the following code": public void parse(InputSource input) throws IOException, SAXException BufferedReader br
-
I was just accessing Screwfix when it happened. It's a complete mystery. Now Mozilla Firefox is shown as Screwfix all the time
-
who can help me is a ipod touch ios 5