Multiply users can call store procedure(SP), that will make some changes to mytable in SQL Server. This SP should insert some rows to mytable that has reference to itself through parentid column.
TABLE mytable(
id int identity(1,1) primary key,
name varchar(20) not null,
parentId int not null foreign key references mytable(id)
)
in order to insert row to such table, accordingly to other posts, I have 2 ways:
Allow null to parentid column by ALTER TABLE mytable alter column parentid int null;, insert the row, update parentid and than disable null to parentid
Allow IDENTITY by set identity_insert maytable on, insert dummy row with id=-1 and parentid=-1, insert the correct row with reference to -1, update the parentid to SCOPE_IDENTITY() and in the end set IDENTITY to off
The case:
Assume I take the 2nd way. SP managed to set identity_insert mytable on BUT didn't yet finished the execution of the rest SP. At this time, there are other INSERT requests(NOT through SP) to the mytable table like INSERT INTO mytable(name,parentid) VALUES('theateist', -1). No id is specified because they assumed that IDENTITY is off and therefore id is auto-incremental.
The Question:
Will this cause errors while inserting because IDENTITY, in this period of time, is ON and not auto-incremental any more and therefore it will require id specification? If yes, it will be better to use the 1st way, isn't it?
Thank you
identity_insert is a per-connection setting - you won't affect other connections/statements running against this table.
I definitely wouldn't suggest going the first way, if it could be avoided, since it could impact other users of the table - e.g. some other connection could do a broken insert (parentid=null) while the column definition allows it, and then your stored proc will break. Also, setting a column not null forces a full table scan to occur, so this won't work well as the table grows.
If you did stick with method 2, you've still got an issue with what happens if two connections run this stored proc simultaneously - they'll both want to insert the -1 row, at different times, and delete it also. You'll have conflicts.
I'm guessing the problem you're having is inserting the "roots" of the tree(s), since they have no parent, and so you're attempting to have them self referencing. I'd instead probably make the roots have a null parentid permanently. If there's some other key column(s), these could be used in a filtered index or indexed view to ensure that only one root exists for each key.
Imagine that we're building some form of family trees, and ignoring most of the realities of such beasts (such as most families requiring children to have two parents):
CREATE TABLE People (
PersonID int IDENTITY(1,1) not null,
Surname varchar(30) not null,
Forename varchar(30) not null,
ParentID int null,
constraint PK_People PRIMARY KEY (PersonID),
constraint FK_People_Parents FOREIGN KEY (ParentID) references People (PersonID)
)
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX IX_SoleFamilyRoot ON People (Surname) WHERE (ParentID is null)
This ensures that, within each family (as identified by the surname), exactly one person has a null ParentID. Hopefully, you can modify this example to fit your model.
On SQL Server 2005 and earlier, you have to use an indexed view instead.
Related
I want to have a unique constraint on a column which I am going to populate with GUIDs. However, my data contains null values for this columns. How do I create the constraint that allows multiple null values?
Here's an example scenario. Consider this schema:
CREATE TABLE People (
Id INT CONSTRAINT PK_MyTable PRIMARY KEY IDENTITY,
Name NVARCHAR(250) NOT NULL,
LibraryCardId UNIQUEIDENTIFIER NULL,
CONSTRAINT UQ_People_LibraryCardId UNIQUE (LibraryCardId)
)
Then see this code for what I'm trying to achieve:
-- This works fine:
INSERT INTO People (Name, LibraryCardId)
VALUES ('John Doe', 'AAAAAAAA-AAAA-AAAA-AAAA-AAAAAAAAAAAA');
-- This also works fine, obviously:
INSERT INTO People (Name, LibraryCardId)
VALUES ('Marie Doe', 'BBBBBBBB-BBBB-BBBB-BBBB-BBBBBBBBBBBB');
-- This would *correctly* fail:
--INSERT INTO People (Name, LibraryCardId)
--VALUES ('John Doe the Second', 'AAAAAAAA-AAAA-AAAA-AAAA-AAAAAAAAAAAA');
-- This works fine this one first time:
INSERT INTO People (Name, LibraryCardId)
VALUES ('Richard Roe', NULL);
-- THE PROBLEM: This fails even though I'd like to be able to do this:
INSERT INTO People (Name, LibraryCardId)
VALUES ('Marcus Roe', NULL);
The final statement fails with a message:
Violation of UNIQUE KEY constraint 'UQ_People_LibraryCardId'. Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'dbo.People'.
How can I change my schema and/or uniqueness constraint so that it allows multiple NULL values, while still checking for uniqueness on actual data?
What you're looking for is indeed part of the ANSI standards SQL:92, SQL:1999 and SQL:2003, ie a UNIQUE constraint must disallow duplicate non-NULL values but accept multiple NULL values.
In the Microsoft world of SQL Server however, a single NULL is allowed but multiple NULLs are not...
In SQL Server 2008, you can define a unique filtered index based on a predicate that excludes NULLs:
CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX idx_yourcolumn_notnull
ON YourTable(yourcolumn)
WHERE yourcolumn IS NOT NULL;
In earlier versions, you can resort to VIEWS with a NOT NULL predicate to enforce the constraint.
SQL Server 2008 +
You can create a unique index that accept multiple NULLs with a WHERE clause. See the answer below.
Prior to SQL Server 2008
You cannot create a UNIQUE constraint and allow NULLs. You need set a default value of NEWID().
Update the existing values to NEWID() where NULL before creating the UNIQUE constraint.
SQL Server 2008 And Up
Just filter a unique index:
CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX UQ_Party_SamAccountName
ON dbo.Party(SamAccountName)
WHERE SamAccountName IS NOT NULL;
In Lower Versions, A Materialized View Is Still Not Required
For SQL Server 2005 and earlier, you can do it without a view. I just added a unique constraint like you're asking for to one of my tables. Given that I want uniqueness in column SamAccountName, but I want to allow multiple NULLs, I used a materialized column rather than a materialized view:
ALTER TABLE dbo.Party ADD SamAccountNameUnique
AS (Coalesce(SamAccountName, Convert(varchar(11), PartyID)))
ALTER TABLE dbo.Party ADD CONSTRAINT UQ_Party_SamAccountName
UNIQUE (SamAccountNameUnique)
You simply have to put something in the computed column that will be guaranteed unique across the whole table when the actual desired unique column is NULL. In this case, PartyID is an identity column and being numeric will never match any SamAccountName, so it worked for me. You can try your own method—be sure you understand the domain of your data so that there is no possibility of intersection with real data. That could be as simple as prepending a differentiator character like this:
Coalesce('n' + SamAccountName, 'p' + Convert(varchar(11), PartyID))
Even if PartyID became non-numeric someday and could coincide with a SamAccountName, now it won't matter.
Note that the presence of an index including the computed column implicitly causes each expression result to be saved to disk with the other data in the table, which DOES take additional disk space.
Note that if you don't want an index, you can still save CPU by making the expression be precalculated to disk by adding the keyword PERSISTED to the end of the column expression definition.
In SQL Server 2008 and up, definitely use the filtered solution instead if you possibly can!
Controversy
Please note that some database professionals will see this as a case of "surrogate NULLs", which definitely have problems (mostly due to issues around trying to determine when something is a real value or a surrogate value for missing data; there can also be issues with the number of non-NULL surrogate values multiplying like crazy).
However, I believe this case is different. The computed column I'm adding will never be used to determine anything. It has no meaning of itself, and encodes no information that isn't already found separately in other, properly defined columns. It should never be selected or used.
So, my story is that this is not a surrogate NULL, and I'm sticking to it! Since we don't actually want the non-NULL value for any purpose other than to trick the UNIQUE index to ignore NULLs, our use case has none of the problems that arise with normal surrogate NULL creation.
All that said, I have no problem with using an indexed view instead—but it brings some issues with it such as the requirement of using SCHEMABINDING. Have fun adding a new column to your base table (you'll at minimum have to drop the index, and then drop the view or alter the view to not be schema bound). See the full (long) list of requirements for creating an indexed view in SQL Server (2005) (also later versions), (2000).
Update
If your column is numeric, there may be the challenge of ensuring that the unique constraint using Coalesce does not result in collisions. In that case, there are some options. One might be to use a negative number, to put the "surrogate NULLs" only in the negative range, and the "real values" only in the positive range. Alternately, the following pattern could be used. In table Issue (where IssueID is the PRIMARY KEY), there may or may not be a TicketID, but if there is one, it must be unique.
ALTER TABLE dbo.Issue ADD TicketUnique
AS (CASE WHEN TicketID IS NULL THEN IssueID END);
ALTER TABLE dbo.Issue ADD CONSTRAINT UQ_Issue_Ticket_AllowNull
UNIQUE (TicketID, TicketUnique);
If IssueID 1 has ticket 123, the UNIQUE constraint will be on values (123, NULL). If IssueID 2 has no ticket, it will be on (NULL, 2). Some thought will show that this constraint cannot be duplicated for any row in the table, and still allows multiple NULLs.
For people who are using Microsoft SQL Server Manager and want to create a Unique but Nullable index you can create your unique index as you normally would then in your Index Properties for your new index, select "Filter" from the left hand panel, then enter your filter (which is your where clause). It should read something like this:
([YourColumnName] IS NOT NULL)
This works with MSSQL 2012
When I applied the unique index below:
CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX idx_badgeid_notnull
ON employee(badgeid)
WHERE badgeid IS NOT NULL;
every non null update and insert failed with the error below:
UPDATE failed because the following SET options have incorrect settings: 'ARITHABORT'.
I found this on MSDN
SET ARITHABORT must be ON when you are creating or changing indexes on computed columns or indexed views. If SET ARITHABORT is OFF, CREATE, UPDATE, INSERT, and DELETE statements on tables with indexes on computed columns or indexed views will fail.
So to get this to work correctly I did this
Right click [Database]-->Properties-->Options-->Other
Options-->Misscellaneous-->Arithmetic Abort Enabled -->true
I believe it is possible to set this option in code using
ALTER DATABASE "DBNAME" SET ARITHABORT ON
but i have not tested this
It can be done in the designer as well
Right click on the Index > Properties to get this window
Create a view that selects only non-NULL columns and create the UNIQUE INDEX on the view:
CREATE VIEW myview
AS
SELECT *
FROM mytable
WHERE mycolumn IS NOT NULL
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ux_myview_mycolumn ON myview (mycolumn)
Note that you'll need to perform INSERT's and UPDATE's on the view instead of table.
You may do it with an INSTEAD OF trigger:
CREATE TRIGGER trg_mytable_insert ON mytable
INSTEAD OF INSERT
AS
BEGIN
INSERT
INTO myview
SELECT *
FROM inserted
END
It is possible to create a unique constraint on a Clustered Indexed View
You can create the View like this:
CREATE VIEW dbo.VIEW_OfYourTable WITH SCHEMABINDING AS
SELECT YourUniqueColumnWithNullValues FROM dbo.YourTable
WHERE YourUniqueColumnWithNullValues IS NOT NULL;
and the unique constraint like this:
CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX UIX_VIEW_OFYOURTABLE
ON dbo.VIEW_OfYourTable(YourUniqueColumnWithNullValues)
In my experience - if you're thinking a column needs to allow NULLs but also needs to be UNIQUE for values where they exist, you may be modelling the data incorrectly. This often suggests you're creating a separate sub-entity within the same table as a different entity. It probably makes more sense to have this entity in a second table.
In the provided example, I would put LibraryCardId in a separate LibraryCards table with a unique not-null foreign key to the People table:
CREATE TABLE People (
Id INT CONSTRAINT PK_MyTable PRIMARY KEY IDENTITY,
Name NVARCHAR(250) NOT NULL,
)
CREATE TABLE LibraryCards (
LibraryCardId UNIQUEIDENTIFIER CONSTRAINT PK_LibraryCards PRIMARY KEY,
PersonId INT NOT NULL
CONSTRAINT UQ_LibraryCardId_PersonId UNIQUE (PersonId),
FOREIGN KEY (PersonId) REFERENCES People(id)
)
This way you don't need to bother with a column being both unique and nullable. If a person doesn't have a library card, they just won't have a record in the library cards table. Also, if there are additional attributes about the library card (perhaps Expiration Date or something), you now have a logical place to put those fields.
Maybe consider an "INSTEAD OF" trigger and do the check yourself? With a non-clustered (non-unique) index on the column to enable the lookup.
As stated before, SQL Server doesn't implement the ANSI standard when it comes to UNIQUE CONSTRAINT. There is a ticket on Microsoft Connect for this since 2007. As suggested there and here the best options as of today are to use a filtered index as stated in another answer or a computed column, e.g.:
CREATE TABLE [Orders] (
[OrderId] INT IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[TrackingId] varchar(11) NULL,
...
[ComputedUniqueTrackingId] AS (
CASE WHEN [TrackingId] IS NULL
THEN '#' + cast([OrderId] as varchar(12))
ELSE [TrackingId_Unique] END
),
CONSTRAINT [UQ_TrackingId] UNIQUE ([ComputedUniqueTrackingId])
)
You can create an INSTEAD OF trigger to check for specific conditions and error if they are met. Creating an index can be costly on larger tables.
Here's an example:
CREATE TRIGGER PONY.trg_pony_unique_name ON PONY.tbl_pony
INSTEAD OF INSERT, UPDATE
AS
BEGIN
IF EXISTS(
SELECT TOP (1) 1
FROM inserted i
GROUP BY i.pony_name
HAVING COUNT(1) > 1
)
OR EXISTS(
SELECT TOP (1) 1
FROM PONY.tbl_pony t
INNER JOIN inserted i
ON i.pony_name = t.pony_name
)
THROW 911911, 'A pony must have a name as unique as s/he is. --PAS', 16;
ELSE
INSERT INTO PONY.tbl_pony (pony_name, stable_id, pet_human_id)
SELECT pony_name, stable_id, pet_human_id
FROM inserted
END
You can't do this with a UNIQUE constraint, but you can do this in a trigger.
CREATE TRIGGER [dbo].[OnInsertMyTableTrigger]
ON [dbo].[MyTable]
INSTEAD OF INSERT
AS
BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;
DECLARE #Column1 INT;
DECLARE #Column2 INT; -- allow nulls on this column
SELECT #Column1=Column1, #Column2=Column2 FROM inserted;
-- Check if an existing record already exists, if not allow the insert.
IF NOT EXISTS(SELECT * FROM dbo.MyTable WHERE Column1=#Column1 AND Column2=#Column2 #Column2 IS NOT NULL)
BEGIN
INSERT INTO dbo.MyTable (Column1, Column2)
SELECT #Column2, #Column2;
END
ELSE
BEGIN
RAISERROR('The unique constraint applies on Column1 %d, AND Column2 %d, unless Column2 is NULL.', 16, 1, #Column1, #Column2);
ROLLBACK TRANSACTION;
END
END
CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [UIX_COLUMN_NAME]
ON [dbo].[Employee]([Username] ASC) WHERE ([Username] IS NOT NULL)
WITH (ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, PAD_INDEX = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF,
DROP_EXISTING = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, ONLINE = OFF,
MAXDOP = 0) ON [PRIMARY];
this code if u make a register form with textBox and use insert and ur textBox is empty and u click on submit button .
CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_tableName_Column]
ON [dbo].[tableName]([columnName] ASC) WHERE [columnName] !=`''`;
As it is said in the title, my question is can I use int identity(1,1) for primary key in more than one table in the same ER model? I found on Internet that Primary Key need to have unique value and row, for example if I set int identity (1,1) for table:
CREATE TABLE dbo.Persons
(
Personid int IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY,
LastName varchar(255) NOT NULL,
FirstName varchar(255),
Age int
);
GO
and the other table
CREATE TABLE dbo.Job
(
jobID int IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
nameJob NVARCHAR(25) NOT NULL,
Personid int FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES dbo.Persons(Personid)
);
Wouldn't Personid and jobID have the same value and because of that cause an error?
Constraints in general are defined and have a scope of one table (object) in the database. The only exception is the FOREIGN KEY which usually has a REFERENCE to another table.
The PRIMARY KEY (or any UNIQUE key) sets a constraint only on the table it is defined on and is not affecting or is not affected by other constraints on other tables.
The PRIMARY KEY defines a column or a set of columns which can be used to uniquely identify one record in one table (and none of the columns can hold NULL, UNIQUE on the other hand allows NULLs and how it is treated might differ in different database engines).
So yes, you might have the same value for PersonID and JobID, but their meaning is different. (And to select the one unique record, you will need to tell SQL Server in which table and in which column of that table you are looking for it, this is the table list and the WHERE or JOIN conditions in the query).
The query SELECT * FROM dbo.Job WHERE JobID = 1; and SELECT * FROM dbo.Person WHERE PersonID = 1; have a different meaning even when the value you are searching for is the same.
You will define the IDENTITY on the table (the table can have only one IDENTITY column). You don't need to have an IDENTITY definition on a column to have the value 1 in it, the IDENTITY just gives you an easy way to generate unique values per table.
You can share sequences across tables by using a SEQUENCE, but that will not prevent you to manually insert the same values into multiple tables.
In short, the value stored in the column is just a value, the table name, the column name and the business rules and roles will give it a meaning.
To the notion "every table needs to have a PRIMARY KEY and IDENTITY, I would like to add, that in most cases there are multiple (independent) keys in the table. Usually every entity has something what you can call business key, which is in loose terms the key what the business (humans) use to identify something. This key has very similar, but usually the same characteristics as a PRIMARY KEY with IDENTITY.
This can be a product's barcode, or the employee's ID card number, or something what is generated in another system (say HR) or a code which is assigned to a customer or partner.
These business keys are useful for humans, but not always useful for computers, but they could serve as PRIMARY KEY.
In databases we (the developers, architects) like simplicity and a business key can be very complex (in computer terms), can consist of multiple columns, and can also cause performance issues (comparing a strings is not the same as comparing numbers, comparing multiple columns is less efficient than comparing one column), but the worst, it might change over time. To resolve this, we tend to create our own technical key which then can be used by computers more easily and we have more control over it, so we use things like IDENTITYs and GUIDs and whatnot.
My Postgres database has the following schema where the the user can store multi profile images.
CREATE TABLE users(
id INT GENERATE AS ALWAYS PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR(50)
);
CREATE TABLE images(
id INT GENERATE AS ALWAYS PRIMARY KEY,
url VARCHAR(50)
);
CREATE TABLE user_images(
user_id INT REFERENCES users(id),
image_id INT REFERENCES images(id)
);
How do I ensure that when I insert a user object, I also insert at least one user image?
You cannot do so very easily . . . and I wouldn't encourage you to enforce this. Why? The problem is a "chick and egg" problem. You cannot insert a row into users because there is no image. You cannot insert a row into user_images because there is no user_id.
Although you can handle this situation with transactions or delayed constraint checking, that covers only half the issue -- because you have to prevent deletion of the last image.
Here are two alternative.
First, you can simply add a main_image_id to the users table and insist that it be NOT NULL. Voila! At least one image is required.
Second, you can use a trigger to maintain a count of images in users. Then treat rows with no images as "deleted" so they are never seen.
When you insert a data into a table database can return a id from row which was inserted. So, if id > 0 the row has been inserted. But first, add column id (bigserial, auto increment, unique) to all tables.
INSERT INTO user_images VALUES (...) RETURNING id;
I have a table that holds Tasks for a particular person.
TaskID INT PK
PersonID INT (FK to Person Table)
TaskStatusID INT (FK To list of Statuses)
Deleted DATETIME NULL
The business rule is that a person can not have more than one active task at a time. A task is 'Active' based on it's TaskStatusID. The statuses are:
'5=New, 6=In 7=Progress, 8=Under 9=Review, 10=Complete, 11=Cancelled'
These are values in my Status table.
So, 5,6,7,8 and 9 are Active tasks. These rest are finalised.
A person can only have one task which is in an active state.
So, to test if I can add a task for this person, I would do:
CASE EXISTS(SELECT * FROM Task WHERE PersonID = 123 AND TaskStatusIN IN (5,6,7,8,9)) THEN 0 ELSE 1 END AS CanAdd
The table has a lot of rows. Around 200,000.
I was thinking of adding a Check Constraint on this table, so on update/insert, I make that query to see if the row being added/edited will break the data integrity with regards the business rules.
Is a check constraint suitable for this, or is there a more efficient way to keep the data integral.
Something like:
ADD CONSTRAINT chk_task CHECK (
EXISTS(SELECT * FROM Task WHERE PersonID = ?? AND TaskStatusIN IN (5,6,7,8,9)))
You can't easily do it with a check constraint because they only (naturally) can make assertions about columns within the same row. There are some kludgy ways to get around that by using a UDF to query other rows but most implementations I've seen have odd edge cases where it's possible to work around the UDF and end up with invalid rows after all.
What you can do is to create an indexed view that maintains the constraint:
create table dbo.Tasks (
TaskID INT not null primary key,
PersonID INT not null,
TaskStatusID INT not null,
Deleted DATETIME NULL
)
go
create view dbo.DRI_Tasks_OneActivePerPerson
with schemabinding
as
select PersonID from dbo.Tasks
where TaskStatusID IN (5,6,7,8,9)
go
create unique clustered index UX_DRI_Tasks_OneActivePerPerson
on dbo.DRI_Tasks_OneActivePerPerson (PersonID)
And now this insert succeeds (because there's only one row with an active status for person 1:
insert into dbo.Tasks (TaskID,PersonID,TaskStatusID)
values (1,1,5),(2,1,1),(3,1,4)
But this insert fails:
insert into dbo.Tasks (TaskID,PersonID,TaskStatusID)
values (4,2,6),(5,2,8)
With the message:
Cannot insert duplicate key row in object 'dbo.DRI_Tasks_OneActivePerPerson'
with unique index 'UX_DRI_Tasks_OneActivePerPerson'.
The duplicate key value is (2).
If you are using SQL Server 2008 or later version, you could create a unique filtered index:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX UQ_ActiveStatus
ON dbo.Task (PersonID)
WHERE TaskStatusID IN (5, 6, 7, 8, 9);
It would act as a unique constraint specifically for rows with the specified statuses. You would only be able to have one of the specified statuses per person.
You can use above check constraint, but the best methodology I will suggest good to write dml trigger, before insert/before update, that one raise the statement.
I need help with constraints in SQL Server. The situation is for each OrderID=1 (foreign key not primary key so there are multiple rows with the same ID) on the table, the bit field can only be 1 for one of those rows, and for each row with OrderID=2, the bit field can only be 1 for one row, etc etc. It should be 0 for all other rows with the same OrderID. Any new records coming in with 1 in the bit field should reject if there is already a row with that OrderID which has the bit field set to 1. Any ideas?
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ON UnnamedTable (OrderID) WHERE UnnamedBitField=1
It's called a Filtered Index. If you're on a pre-2008 version of SQL Server, you can implement a poor-mans equivalent of a filtered index using an indexed view:
CREATE VIEW UnnamedView
WITH SCHEMABINDING
AS
SELECT OrderID From UnnamedSchema.UnnamedTable WHERE UnnamedBitField=1
GO
CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX ON UnnamedView (OrderID)
You can't really do it as a constraint, since SQL Server only supports column constraints and row constraints. There's no (non-fudging) way to write a constraint that deals with all values in the table.
You could more fully normalize the schema which will help you not have to hunt for the already set bit but use a join. You need to remove the bit field and crate a new table say X containing OrderID and the primary key of your table, with the primary key of X being all those fields.
This means that when you insert you need to insert into your original table and into X f and only if you would have set the bit to 1 on your table. The insert will fail if there is already a row in X which is as if there was already an original row with bit set to 1.
The downside is that this takes up more space than your schema but is easier to maintain as you can't get to the equivalent of having two rows with the bit set to 1.
The only way to do that is to subclass the parent table. You didn't mention it but a common reason for this pattern is to represent one unique active row from the set of all rows with the same common key value. Let's Assume your bit field represents the active Orders....
Then I would create a separate table called ActiveOrders, which will only contain the one row with the bit field set to 1
Create Table ActiveOrders(int Orderid Primary Key Null)
and the other table with all the rows in it, with it's own unique Primary Key OrderId
Create Table AllOrders
(OrderId Integer Primary Key Not Null, ActiveOrderId Integer Not Null,
[All other data fields]
Constraint FK_AllOrders2ActiveOrder
Foreign Key(ActiveOrderId) references ActiveOrders(OrderId))
You now no longer even need the bit field, as the presence of the row in the ActiveOrders table identifies it as the Active Order... To get only the active Orders (the ones that in your scheme would have bit field set to 1), just join the two tables.
I aggree with the other answers and if you can change the schema then do that but if not then I think something like this will do.
CREATE FUNCTION fnMyCheck
(#id INT)
RETURNS INT
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #i INT
SELECT #i = COUNT(*)
FROM MyTable
WHERE FkCol = #id
AND BitCol = 1
RETURN #i
END
ALTER TABLE YourTable
ADD CONSTRAINT ckMyCheck CHECK (fnMyCheck(FkCol)<=1)
but there are problems that can come from doing using a udf in a check constraint, such as this
Edit to add comment regarding problems with this 'solution':
There are more straightforward issues than what you've linked to.
INSERT INTO YourTable(FkCol,BitCol) VALUES (1,1),(1,0)
followed by
UPDATE YourTable SET BitCol=1
succeeds and leaves two rows with FkCol=1 and BitCol=1