On Apr 23, 11:23 am, "Peter H. Coffin" <hell...@ninehells.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:53:35 -0700 (PDT), lawp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 4:25 pm, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> My first guess (and almost certainly the correct one) is:
> >> - the UNIQUE is NOT defined properly, or there are more then 1 UNIQUE keys
> >> defined on the same table.
>
> >> My second and final farfetched guess is:
> >> - client-id is erroneously defined as float and there are float troubles
> >> (in which case not security but mere shame client-id was defined as a
> >> float would prevent me from posting the table definition).
>
> >> No more guesses will be made from here on by me. Without a table
> >> definition, I leave you to the people with better crystal balls.
>
> > Those are good guesses, and I appreciate your assistance. I'm probably
> > coming off as smarmy, but I'm just relaying information.
>
> > All I asked originally was if
> > "Am I getting the error because my UNIQUE key is too long? "
> > "Is there a way to actually look at the values for the keys in my
> > table? "
>
> > If you are choosing to answer more than "No, no", then I appreciate
>
> It's probably more "not in this case from the visible sample, no", but
> that doesn't change this instance. Unique keys can get kind of funny
> when you're dealing with large objects. But the hash you've chosen
> indicates that you've probably intentionally sidestepped that issue.

That's all I can reasonably expect here. I tried to phrase my question
in terms of "Can MySQL do this" rather than "Here's my code and error,
what's wrong?" because I could not provide my code. For whatever
reason, I phrased my request and responses here in a way that
triggered responses from people as if I were trolling. Well, I really
don't know what people thought, but to me, it seemed to get a little
heated, and I think that the fault lies on my part. That wasn't my
intention; there was some subtlety of communication that I missed out
on.

> > your willingness to go the extra mile to help me troubleshoot me
> > troubleshoot my problem, and I apologize that I could not provide the
> > additional information. It's not my decision to make.
>
> See, now THAT is a fine reason not to share the structure. "Can't, for
> internal political reasons. Thanks for your time" is always acceptable,
> as are NDAs or even "don't feel like it". The price for those things is
> that we can't give much help, and that's usually a pretty small price.
> Very few folks here know anything that's not in the doco anyway; we
> (collectively) just may be able to cross-corollate faster than one brain
> does in a particular instance.

That's true. I'm certainly aware of the value of this newsgroup, and I
have gotten a lot out of it over the years. It feels to me almost like
an abuse of the newsgroup not to be able to post the structure -- like
I'm not paying my dues -- but in this instance, I just can't.