Uploaded image for project: 'Derby'
  1. Derby
  2. DERBY-3299

Uniqueness violation error (23505) occurs after dropping a PK constraint if there exists a foreign key on the same columns.

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

    Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Minor
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 10.1.3.1, 10.2.1.6, 10.2.2.0, 10.3.1.4, 10.3.2.1, 10.4.1.3
    • Fix Version/s: 10.4.1.3
    • Component/s: SQL
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      When there are multiple constraints on a single table and the constraints have the same set of columns (in the same order), Derby tries to optimize things by re-using a single backing index for all of the relevant constraints. See the "executeConstantAction()" method of CreateIndexConstantAction.java (search for "duplicate").

      But there is a bug in Derby where, if one of the constraints is unique and is dropped, the uniqueness "attribute" of the backing index is not updated accordingly. This means that uniqueness may be incorrectly enforced where it is not required.

      Take the following example ("Case 2" from DERBY-2204):

      ALTER TABLE NEWORDERS ADD CONSTRAINT
      NEWORDERS_PK PRIMARY KEY(NO_W_ID, NO_D_ID, NO_O_ID);

      ALTER TABLE NEWORDERS ADD CONSTRAINT
      NO_O_FK FOREIGN KEY (NO_W_ID, NO_D_ID, NO_O_ID) REFERENCES ORDERS;

      For these statements Derby will use a single backing index for both the primary constraint NEWORDERS_PK and the foreign key constraint NO_O_FK. That backing index will be unique because the primary key must itself be unique.

      If later we drop the primary key:

      ALTER TABLE NEWORDERS DROP CONSTRAINT NEWORDERS_PK;

      then the backing index needs to be converted from a unique index to a non-unique index (because a foreign key is not inherently unique). But in Derby the uniqueness attribute remains unchanged, so attempts to insert a duplicate (NO_W_ID, NO_D_ID, NO_O_ID) row into NEWORDERS will fail with error 23505, when it should really succeed.

      I tried this out on 10.1.3.1 and the same behavior occurs there, so marking "Affects" versions for everything back to that...

        Attachments

        1. d3299_tests_v2.patch
          27 kB
          A B
        2. d3299_dropSharedConglom_v2.patch
          22 kB
          A B
        3. d3299_caUtilMethods_v2.patch
          16 kB
          A B
        4. d3299_tests_v1.patch
          27 kB
          A B
        5. d3299_dropSharedConglom_v1.patch
          22 kB
          A B
        6. d3299_caUtilMethods_v1.patch
          17 kB
          A B
        7. d3299_createIxAction_v1.patch
          13 kB
          A B
        8. d3299_v1.patch
          77 kB
          A B
        9. case_2.sql
          4 kB
          A B

          Issue Links

            Activity

              People

              • Assignee:
                army A B
                Reporter:
                army A B
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                0 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved: