Question :
With reference to this SO question, what would be a correct way to implement Unique tag Combination Constraint in SQL Server 2005?
To illustrate the problem, I make an example:
A tag_bundle consists of one or more than one tags.
A unique tag combination can map to a unique tag_bundle, vice versa.
tag_bundle tag tag_bundle_relation
+---------------+ +--------+ +---------------+--------+
| tag_bundle_id | | tag_id | | tag_bundle_id | tag_id |
+---------------+ +--------+ +---------------+--------+
| 1 | | 100 | | 1 | 100 |
+---------------+ +--------+ +---------------+--------+
| 2 | | 101 | | 1 | 101 |
+---------------+ +--------+ +---------------+--------+
| 102 | | 2 | 101 |
+--------+ +---------------+--------+
| 2 | 102 |
+---------------+--------+
There can’t be another tag_bundle having exactly the same combination from tag 100 and tag 101.
There can’t be another tag_bundle having exactly the same combination from tag 101 and tag 102.
How can I ensure such unique constraint when executing SQL “concurrently”!!
that is, to prevent concurrently adding two bundles with exactly the same tag combination
Adding a simple unique constraint on any table does not work,
Is there any solution other than Trigger or explicit lock.
I come to only this simple way: make tag combination into string, and let it be a unique column.
tag_bundle (unique on tags) tag tag_bundle_relation
+---------------+-----------+ +--------+ +---------------+--------+
| tag_bundle_id | tags | | tag_id | | tag_bundle_id | tag_id |
+---------------+-----------+ +--------+ +---------------+--------+
| 1 | "100,101" | | 101 | | 1 | 101 |
+---------------+-----------+ +--------+ +---------------+--------+
| 100 | | 1 | 100 |
+--------+ +---------------+--------+
but it seems not a good way 🙁
Is there no other solution but with triggers?
Answer :
My only suggestion is to create stored procedure that performs DML on tag_bundle_relation
and restrict all users from manipulating the table directly (it’s in a sense ‘explicit lock’ as you say). I don’t see any other acceptable ways to enforce the required restriction. In my understanding your simple solution just adds complexity to the system – you will need more triggers to synchronize tags
field with tag_bundle_relation
and tag
tables. Also, you may get false fail if you are adding records to tag_bundle_relation
one by one – for instance, inserting tag_bundle_id=3
with tag_id
s 100,101,102 will fail after attempting to insert 101 (assuming 100 already inserted).