How to set a unique constraint on an association id?
Locked
 
|
I didn't find any example in the Grails documentation, but I found a
message in this list explaining how to do what I wanted (kind of): class Face { static hasOne = [nose:Nose] Integer position static constraints = { position unique: 'nose' } } But looking at the SQL log, I noticed that all fields from Nose are retrieved from the database when testing for uniqueness. This is a very expensive operation for my application and I'd like to write something like this: position unique: 'noseId' // or position unique: 'nose.id' Neither of the attempts above did work. How can I do that? I only want to check for noseId and I don't want to fetch the whole Nose for checking the uniqueness. Thanks in advance, Rodrigo. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
Re: How to set a unique constraint on an association id?
|
Im confused :s. You want a nose to be associated with one face only?
something like nose(unique:true) doesnt do what you need? Thanks On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[hidden email]> wrote: > I didn't find any example in the Grails documentation, but I found a message > in this list explaining how to do what I wanted (kind of): > > class Face { > static hasOne = [nose:Nose] > Integer position > static constraints = { > position unique: 'nose' > } > } > > But looking at the SQL log, I noticed that all fields from Nose are > retrieved from the database when testing for uniqueness. > > This is a very expensive operation for my application and I'd like to write > something like this: > > position unique: 'noseId' // or position unique: 'nose.id' > > Neither of the attempts above did work. > > How can I do that? I only want to check for noseId and I don't want to fetch > the whole Nose for checking the uniqueness. > > Thanks in advance, > > Rodrigo. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
This is just an example adapted from the Grails documentation, that is
not my real domain class, of course. Don't try to get any sense from the example, for my real application it does make sense for the position to be unique across an association id. I can't expose my application, so let me try another example: class Reference { static belongsTo = [book: Book] Integer position static constraints = { position unique: book } } I can't have two references with the same position for a single book. Em 26-02-2012 19:27, Jason Davis escreveu: > Im confused :s. You want a nose to be associated with one face only? > > something like nose(unique:true) doesnt do what you need? > > Thanks > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I didn't find any example in the Grails documentation, but I found a message >> in this list explaining how to do what I wanted (kind of): >> >> class Face { >> static hasOne = [nose:Nose] >> Integer position >> static constraints = { >> position unique: 'nose' >> } >> } >> >> But looking at the SQL log, I noticed that all fields from Nose are >> retrieved from the database when testing for uniqueness. >> >> This is a very expensive operation for my application and I'd like to write >> something like this: >> >> position unique: 'noseId' // or position unique: 'nose.id' >> >> Neither of the attempts above did work. >> >> How can I do that? I only want to check for noseId and I don't want to fetch >> the whole Nose for checking the uniqueness. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Rodrigo. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
Re: How to set a unique constraint on an association id?
|
|
so you need a composite key?
http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/GORM.html#compositePrimaryKeys On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[hidden email]> wrote: > This is just an example adapted from the Grails documentation, that is not > my real domain class, of course. > > Don't try to get any sense from the example, for my real application it does > make sense for the position to be unique across an association id. > > I can't expose my application, so let me try another example: > > class Reference { > static belongsTo = [book: Book] > > Integer position > static constraints = { > position unique: book > } > } > > I can't have two references with the same position for a single book. > > Em 26-02-2012 19:27, Jason Davis escreveu: > >> Im confused :s. You want a nose to be associated with one face only? >> >> something like nose(unique:true) doesnt do what you need? >> >> Thanks >> >> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> I didn't find any example in the Grails documentation, but I found a >>> message >>> in this list explaining how to do what I wanted (kind of): >>> >>> class Face { >>> static hasOne = [nose:Nose] >>> Integer position >>> static constraints = { >>> position unique: 'nose' >>> } >>> } >>> >>> But looking at the SQL log, I noticed that all fields from Nose are >>> retrieved from the database when testing for uniqueness. >>> >>> This is a very expensive operation for my application and I'd like to >>> write >>> something like this: >>> >>> position unique: 'noseId' // or position unique: 'nose.id' >>> >>> Neither of the attempts above did work. >>> >>> How can I do that? I only want to check for noseId and I don't want to >>> fetch >>> the whole Nose for checking the uniqueness. >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> >>> Rodrigo. >>> >>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
No, I don't want a composite primary key. I just want position to be
unique among an association id. Em 27-02-2012 12:58, Jason Davis escreveu: > so you need a composite key? > > http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/GORM.html#compositePrimaryKeys > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> This is just an example adapted from the Grails documentation, that is not >> my real domain class, of course. >> >> Don't try to get any sense from the example, for my real application it does >> make sense for the position to be unique across an association id. >> >> I can't expose my application, so let me try another example: >> >> class Reference { >> static belongsTo = [book: Book] >> >> Integer position >> static constraints = { >> position unique: book >> } >> } >> >> I can't have two references with the same position for a single book. >> >> Em 26-02-2012 19:27, Jason Davis escreveu: >> >>> Im confused :s. You want a nose to be associated with one face only? >>> >>> something like nose(unique:true) doesnt do what you need? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas >>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> I didn't find any example in the Grails documentation, but I found a >>>> message >>>> in this list explaining how to do what I wanted (kind of): >>>> >>>> class Face { >>>> static hasOne = [nose:Nose] >>>> Integer position >>>> static constraints = { >>>> position unique: 'nose' >>>> } >>>> } >>>> >>>> But looking at the SQL log, I noticed that all fields from Nose are >>>> retrieved from the database when testing for uniqueness. >>>> >>>> This is a very expensive operation for my application and I'd like to >>>> write >>>> something like this: >>>> >>>> position unique: 'noseId' // or position unique: 'nose.id' >>>> >>>> Neither of the attempts above did work. >>>> >>>> How can I do that? I only want to check for noseId and I don't want to >>>> fetch >>>> the whole Nose for checking the uniqueness. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance, >>>> >>>> Rodrigo. >>>> >>>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
Re: How to set a unique constraint on an association id?
|
|
wouldn't a composite key of book and position enforce exactly that?
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[hidden email]> wrote: > No, I don't want a composite primary key. I just want position to be unique > among an association id. > > Em 27-02-2012 12:58, Jason Davis escreveu: > >> so you need a composite key? >> >> http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/GORM.html#compositePrimaryKeys >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> This is just an example adapted from the Grails documentation, that is >>> not >>> my real domain class, of course. >>> >>> Don't try to get any sense from the example, for my real application it >>> does >>> make sense for the position to be unique across an association id. >>> >>> I can't expose my application, so let me try another example: >>> >>> class Reference { >>> static belongsTo = [book: Book] >>> >>> Integer position >>> static constraints = { >>> position unique: book >>> } >>> } >>> >>> I can't have two references with the same position for a single book. >>> >>> Em 26-02-2012 19:27, Jason Davis escreveu: >>> >>>> Im confused :s. You want a nose to be associated with one face only? >>>> >>>> something like nose(unique:true) doesnt do what you need? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I didn't find any example in the Grails documentation, but I found a >>>>> message >>>>> in this list explaining how to do what I wanted (kind of): >>>>> >>>>> class Face { >>>>> static hasOne = [nose:Nose] >>>>> Integer position >>>>> static constraints = { >>>>> position unique: 'nose' >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> But looking at the SQL log, I noticed that all fields from Nose are >>>>> retrieved from the database when testing for uniqueness. >>>>> >>>>> This is a very expensive operation for my application and I'd like to >>>>> write >>>>> something like this: >>>>> >>>>> position unique: 'noseId' // or position unique: 'nose.id' >>>>> >>>>> Neither of the attempts above did work. >>>>> >>>>> How can I do that? I only want to check for noseId and I don't want to >>>>> fetch >>>>> the whole Nose for checking the uniqueness. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance, >>>>> >>>>> Rodrigo. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >>> >>> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
I think you're offering a workaround over an existing limitation of
GORM, not a real solution.
Primary key has a different concern than a unique index. I still want the primary key to be a unique id, but I also have other unique indexes in the database that I'd like to enforce the constraint in the application level too. With ActiveRecord in Rails you can do that with the examples below, as documented in the following link: http://ar.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Validations/ClassMethods.html#M000086 validates_uniqueness_of :user_name, :scope => :account_id or validates_uniqueness_of :teacher_id, :scope => [:semester_id, :class_id] And you can have also other scoped unique constraints for the same model. You can't have multiple unique constraints and set all of them with composite keys for example. But I have other performance considerations in mind and justifications why I never use composite keys in relational databases, but I won't discuss them here as they are not relevant to this issue. Please, stop trying to convince me to adopt a composite primary key. Just let me know if you know how I can just set the unique constraint with a scoped association. Thanks, Rodrigo. Em 27-02-2012 15:35, Jason Davis escreveu: wouldn't a composite key of book and position enforce exactly that? On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas [hidden email] wrote:No, I don't want a composite primary key. I just want position to be unique among an association id. Em 27-02-2012 12:58, Jason Davis escreveu:so you need a composite key? http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/GORM.html#compositePrimaryKeys On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas [hidden email] wrote: |
Re: How to set a unique constraint on an association id?
|
|
I wasnt trying to convince you of anything, I have nothing to sell here....
Just trying to understand your problem. Wont happen again :) On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[hidden email]> wrote: > I think you're offering a workaround over an existing limitation of GORM, > not a real solution. > > Primary key has a different concern than a unique index. I still want the > primary key to be a unique id, but I also have other unique indexes in the > database that I'd like to enforce the constraint in the application level > too. > > With ActiveRecord in Rails you can do that with the examples below, as > documented in the following link: > > http://ar.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Validations/ClassMethods.html#M000086 > > validates_uniqueness_of :user_name, :scope => :account_id > > or > > validates_uniqueness_of :teacher_id, :scope => [:semester_id, :class_id] > > And you can have also other scoped unique constraints for the same model. > You can't have multiple unique constraints and set all of them with > composite keys for example. > > But I have other performance considerations in mind and justifications why I > never use composite keys in relational databases, but I won't discuss them > here as they are not relevant to this issue. > > Please, stop trying to convince me to adopt a composite primary key. Just > let me know if you know how I can just set the unique constraint with a > scoped association. > > Thanks, > Rodrigo. > > Em 27-02-2012 15:35, Jason Davis escreveu: > > wouldn't a composite key of book and position enforce exactly that? > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > No, I don't want a composite primary key. I just want position to be unique > among an association id. > > Em 27-02-2012 12:58, Jason Davis escreveu: > > so you need a composite key? > > http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/GORM.html#compositePrimaryKeys > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > This is just an example adapted from the Grails documentation, that is > not > my real domain class, of course. > > Don't try to get any sense from the example, for my real application it > does > make sense for the position to be unique across an association id. > > I can't expose my application, so let me try another example: > > class Reference { > static belongsTo = [book: Book] > > Integer position > static constraints = { > position unique: book > } > } > > I can't have two references with the same position for a single book. > > Em 26-02-2012 19:27, Jason Davis escreveu: > > Im confused :s. You want a nose to be associated with one face only? > > something like nose(unique:true) doesnt do what you need? > > Thanks > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I didn't find any example in the Grails documentation, but I found a > message > in this list explaining how to do what I wanted (kind of): > > class Face { > static hasOne = [nose:Nose] > Integer position > static constraints = { > position unique: 'nose' > } > } > > But looking at the SQL log, I noticed that all fields from Nose are > retrieved from the database when testing for uniqueness. > > This is a very expensive operation for my application and I'd like to > write > something like this: > > position unique: 'noseId' // or position unique: 'nose.id' > > Neither of the attempts above did work. > > How can I do that? I only want to check for noseId and I don't want to > fetch > the whole Nose for checking the uniqueness. > > Thanks in advance, > > Rodrigo. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
Re: How to set a unique constraint on an association id?
|
In reply to this post by rosenfeld
Are you just looking for something like:
static constraints = {
...
login(unique:['group','department'])
...
}
from
http://grails.org/doc/2.0.x/ref/Constraints/unique.html
ShaneOn 2/27/2012 1:15 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote: I think you're offering a workaround over an existing limitation of GORM, not a real solution. -- Shane |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jason Davis
Just to make it clear, I didn't intend to be rude in my previous
message. Sorry if it sounded so. I really appreciate your help. Thanks, Rodrigo. Em 27-02-2012 16:29, Jason Davis escreveu: > I wasnt trying to convince you of anything, I have nothing to sell here.... > > Just trying to understand your problem. Wont happen again :) > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I think you're offering a workaround over an existing limitation of GORM, >> not a real solution. >> >> Primary key has a different concern than a unique index. I still want the >> primary key to be a unique id, but I also have other unique indexes in the >> database that I'd like to enforce the constraint in the application level >> too. >> >> With ActiveRecord in Rails you can do that with the examples below, as >> documented in the following link: >> >> http://ar.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Validations/ClassMethods.html#M000086 >> >> validates_uniqueness_of :user_name, :scope => :account_id >> >> or >> >> validates_uniqueness_of :teacher_id, :scope => [:semester_id, :class_id] >> >> And you can have also other scoped unique constraints for the same model. >> You can't have multiple unique constraints and set all of them with >> composite keys for example. >> >> But I have other performance considerations in mind and justifications why I >> never use composite keys in relational databases, but I won't discuss them >> here as they are not relevant to this issue. >> >> Please, stop trying to convince me to adopt a composite primary key. Just >> let me know if you know how I can just set the unique constraint with a >> scoped association. >> >> Thanks, >> Rodrigo. >> >> Em 27-02-2012 15:35, Jason Davis escreveu: >> >> wouldn't a composite key of book and position enforce exactly that? >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> No, I don't want a composite primary key. I just want position to be unique >> among an association id. >> >> Em 27-02-2012 12:58, Jason Davis escreveu: >> >> so you need a composite key? >> >> http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/GORM.html#compositePrimaryKeys >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> This is just an example adapted from the Grails documentation, that is >> not >> my real domain class, of course. >> >> Don't try to get any sense from the example, for my real application it >> does >> make sense for the position to be unique across an association id. >> >> I can't expose my application, so let me try another example: >> >> class Reference { >> static belongsTo = [book: Book] >> >> Integer position >> static constraints = { >> position unique: book >> } >> } >> >> I can't have two references with the same position for a single book. >> >> Em 26-02-2012 19:27, Jason Davis escreveu: >> >> Im confused :s. You want a nose to be associated with one face only? >> >> something like nose(unique:true) doesnt do what you need? >> >> Thanks >> >> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> I didn't find any example in the Grails documentation, but I found a >> message >> in this list explaining how to do what I wanted (kind of): >> >> class Face { >> static hasOne = [nose:Nose] >> Integer position >> static constraints = { >> position unique: 'nose' >> } >> } >> >> But looking at the SQL log, I noticed that all fields from Nose are >> retrieved from the database when testing for uniqueness. >> >> This is a very expensive operation for my application and I'd like to >> write >> something like this: >> >> position unique: 'noseId' // or position unique: 'nose.id' >> >> Neither of the attempts above did work. >> >> How can I do that? I only want to check for noseId and I don't want to >> fetch >> the whole Nose for checking the uniqueness. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Rodrigo. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
In reply to this post by Shane Petroff
Hi Shane, thanks me for pointing me out where this is documented. I
couldn't find it before but now I see the "Constraints" section in
the right side.
But this doesn't solve the issue to me due to performance issues. Please take a look at my first message in this thread or at this JIRA I created earlier today: http://jira.grails.org/browse/GRAILS-8850 Thanks, Rodrigo. Em 27-02-2012 16:52, Shane Petroff escreveu: Are you just looking for something like: |
«
Return to Grails - user
|
1 view|%1 views
Loading...
| Powered by Nabble | Edit this page |