Kynn Jones wrote:
> I have a table used to store information about pairs of items. This
> information is independent of the order of the two items in the pair,
> so having two records
>
> X Y <info>
> Y X <info>
>
> in the table would be redundant. But as far as I can tell, this
> situation would not violate a uniqueness constraint involving the two
> fields.
>
> I could add the original constraint that enforces some canonical
> order, say X < Y (assuming that they are integer IDs), but I'm trying
> to avoid this because it would lead to a significant complication of
> many of my queries, which currently ascribe slightly different
> semantics to the first and second members of the pair.
>
> The only solution I could think of is to write a function that takes
> the two elements as input and returns them in some canonical order:
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION canonicalize( anyelement, anyelement )
> RETURNS anyarray AS
> $$
> BEGIN
> IF $1 < $2 THEN RETURN ARRAY[ $1, $2 ];
> ELSE RETURN ARRAY[ $2, $1 ];
> END IF;
> END;
> $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
>
> and this function works as expected, but when I try to use it in a
> constraint I get the error:
>
> -> ALTER TABLE foo ADD CONSTRAINT foo_uniq_x_y UNIQUE(canonicalize(x,y));
> ERROR: 42601: syntax error at or near "("
> LINE 1: ...E foo ADD CONSTRAINT foo_uniq_x_y UNIQUE(canonicalize(x,y));
> ^
> LOCATION: base_yyerror, scan.l:795
>
> I found this puzzling; it's not clear to me why UNIQUE(UPPER(x)) is OK
> syntax but not UNIQUE(my_function(x)).
>
> But be that as it may, is there any way to enforce an
> order-independent uniqueness constraint without forcing a canonical
> ordering on the elements saved in the table.
>
I'm not sure that what you're doing is the best solution, but shouldn't
that be: "... foo_uniq_x_y UNIQUE(SELECT canonicalize(x,y))"?
brian