Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 97072 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2008 14:23:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Jun 2008 14:23:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 22789 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jun 2008 14:23:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 22770 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jun 2008 14:23:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-user@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 22759 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jun 2008 14:23:23 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:23:23 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [192.18.19.6] (HELO sineb-mail-1.sun.com) (192.18.19.6) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:22:32 +0000 Received: from fe-apac-05.sun.com (fe-apac-05.sun.com [192.18.19.176] (may be forged)) by sineb-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m5QEN3Gh009800 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:23:05 GMT Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-apac.sun.com by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0K3200H01QIMFO00@mail-apac.sun.com> (original mail from Anurag.Shekhar@Sun.COM) for derby-user@db.apache.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:22:12 +0800 (SGT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] ([122.167.182.66]) by mail-apac.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0K32003TTQKWJPPZ@mail-apac.sun.com> for derby-user@db.apache.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:22:12 +0800 (SGT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:52:33 +0530 From: Anurag shekhar Subject: Re: any feedback on this? In-reply-to: <4860D403.1010407@sun.com> Sender: Anurag.Shekhar@Sun.COM To: Derby Discussion Message-id: <4863A629.3020206@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <248012.88193.qm@web31807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <485FB1AA.4060701@sun.com> <486034E1.4010408@sun.com> <48603599.9010807@amberpoint.com> <4860372E.4030505@sun.com> <4860BB68.4010405@sun.com> <4860BF46.6070803@sun.com> <4860CDAB.3060703@sun.com> <4860D403.1010407@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > Ah, you have to add it as a 'unique' table constraint, if you add a > unique index it doesn't work. Odd, shouldn't you be able to do it > either way? > SQL spec defines behavior of unique constrain over null able field to allow multiple null for the fields participating in the constraint. For Index it doesn't specifically says anything about it. So for now even though the index and constraint are behaving differently the behavior is not violating any guidelines. anurag