Find a row by primary key, when you don’t know in which table it is?

I’m the (inofficial) DBA responsible for a proprietary OODBMS. Management wants us to move to Postgres, to reduce license costs. The move should be progressive, therefore we should also keep the same data-structure as in the OODBMS. Luckily, with the support for ARRAYs, and table inheritance, we can literally create an identical schema in Postgres. All tables will use bigint as primary key, and all (indirectly) inherit from the same base table.

The biggest issue is this: Our bigint key are (and must be) unique across all tables, and we must be able to quickly load a set of rows, based on their primary key, without knowing in which table they are. The rows will be spread over any and all tables. The primary concern here is speed, rather than disk or memory usage.

Expressed differently, what we need is a unique index across all tables. AFAIK, this is not possible in Postgres. What is the “next best” option? I’m open to any solution, including using, or maybe even coding, some “Postgres extension”.

To give some hints about the actual DB, we are talking about 300 tables, 130M rows, and about 300GB in size (OODBMS size).

What to do if the primary action is actually to confirm a cancellation?

Dialog asking for cancellation confirmation with two cancel buttons

I’ll ignore the fact that it isn’t obvious what ‘20190927.6’ is from the screenshot (it would be more obvious in the workflow context).

Obviously someone is following the pattern that the primary button should be labelled clearly as the effective outcome – in this case, clicking on the primary button should result in ‘20190927.6’ being cancelled.

They’ve also included a secondary button which backs out of the process without making changes – labelled ‘Cancel’.

Luckily, there’s a design convention – so the blue button is probably the primary action, and the grey button is probably the secondary.

What would be a better way to label these buttons?

Given the ‘are you sure’ question, wouldn’t Yes/No buttons be good enough in this instance?

External Content write to SQL DB value assignment not seeing Primary Key

I created an external content type in SharePoint Designer 2013 for SharePoint 2016 on premises using Impersonate Custom Identity with a SQL login using the Secure Store. I generated an external list in my Site Collection and finally a workflow to write a record from my internal SharePoint list to the external list.

Workflow line 1: Create item in MyExternalListName (Output to Variable: create).

I am able to select all columns in value assignment except for the primary key. Is this a restriction?

Thank you!

PF-1e Can you variant multiclass as your primary class?

Can you VMC into the same class you’re taking as a primary class to ‘focus on your class’ at the expense of feats and gain increased benefit or uses from class features, or to be able to choose from two options of a class ability you would otherwise have to make choices against?

The example in mind is a Wizard VMC Wizard. At the expense of some feats you can choose a school as your main wizard, and specialize in a different school on the VMC ‘side’. Likewise you could choose an arcane bond with your primary levels, and then pick up a familiar at level three. The arcane school powers you get from the VMC side are slower than you’re primary, but this would (in theory) allow you to double dip on some class abilities.

Many VMC combinations like this are somewhat useless, such as a Ranger VMC Ranger would gain nothing they don’t already have and things which don’t really stack (except, maybe, having more favored enemies.) But a Paladin could have more lay on hand and smite uses per day.

The Character Advancement rules don’t expressly prohibit it. They do prohibit taking levels in your VMC class, but only in the context of blending normal multiclass with VMC; avoiding builds like Fighter VMC Cleric 3 / Cleric 2.

Conversely, there is no way to take the 1st level in a class twice. You cannot be a Sorcerer 1 / Sorcerer 1 and choose two different bloodlines. Curious if there was any rule or guiding principle I’m unaware of giving a hard line on if this is a legitimate option or not.

Xubuntu setup not allowing to create an extended partition, limits to four total, no matter if primary or logical

I have just been installing Xubuntu on my netbook and after I have let the setup wipe the disk and install it by itself out of laziness. It was half into the setup that I noticed I haven’t seen it create a swap partition in the confirmation dialog, so I have let it complete and then restarted it to manually partition it.

After reading a bit more on the matter itself before doing random things, I have come to the knowledge to place the swap partition at the beginning of the drive so it can be accessed fast and also to place /boot within the first 100 GB of the drive so the BIOS can find and boot from it. I also read more about the importance and advantages of partitions in general and decided to create a few more than just swap, /boot and /.

So halfway into it, having created swap first as logical partition, /boot second as primary partition and / as well as /var as logical partition, the setup refused to create more, stating it was not possible for me to create more than four primary partitions.

Now this was the moment when confusion hit me like a train as I have already read before about that (which is why I have had selected logical for anything but /boot in the first place), because I have only created a single primary partition and not four as the setup stated.

During my research I found that the solution for creating more than four was to use extended partitions but the setup (as opposed to gparted) did not even give me the option to select anything but primary and logical, whereas it obviously didn’t even care what I selected and created only primaries.

I messed around a bit with it and was able to create tons of small logical partitions in a row, but as soon as I have applied the above mentioned configuration, it was over.

So, does the order of the logical and primary partitions matter? If yes, how am I supposed to adhere to “place swap at the beginning of the drive” and “keep your /boot within the first 100GB of the drive” and have more than just two more additional partitions?

Page jumps and separate pages in primary navigation

We’re working on a website and I was wondering what the best practice for this scenario is. We are designing a website for our company and we aren’t too sure if it’s good practice to link to separate pages as well as linking to page jumps in the same menu.

I have a feeling that it will more than likely confuse the user that they might be going to a different page or to certain points on the same page. Has anyone else had any experience doing this?

Using UNIQUE (col1, col2) or using a composite primary key for a relation table in SQLite/SQL?

i’m working on a project where i’m using SQLite and where i have a few relation tables looking similar to this one:

CREATE TABLE tag_entry_relation ( id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, tag_id INTEGER REFERENCES tag(id), entry_id INTEGER REFERENCES entry(id) ); 

I know that the two “referencing” columns will together be unique (so there will be no duplicates).

I’m considering whether to use the UNIQUE constraint or if it’s better to use a composite primary key

The reason i see for using a composite primary key is simply that it requires one column less than the other option

I don’t see a reason for using a UNIQUE constraint except that i’m more used to this than using a composite primary key, so i’m worried i might be missing something

What would you recommend? Grateful for help!

PS: As far as i can tell there’s no difference between SQL and SQLite in regards to this question

Does 5e follow the Primary Source rule?

In D&D 3.5, there exists a hierarchy of sources as a rules concept so that if something in one text contradicts a passage in another one of the sources may officially take precedence. An important benefit of this often lampooned publication paradigm is that the Core Rules– the PHB, MM, and DMG– overrule any other source that contradicts them except errata and, as a result, owning the core rules lets you know how everything in those rulebooks works; you don’t have to get any more books to find out e.g. how falling ‘actually’ works, because the rules presented in the Core set aren’t changed by anything except freely-available errata documents, at least in theory. While other books may present optional rules or new rule systems, they can’t add new rules that change, even slightly, how the old ones work and so you can be confident, if you have the core set, that you aren’t ‘missing anything’.

Of course, Wizards then did publish content (e.g. the FAQ or Rules Compendium) that wasn’t a errata and yet tried to change how things worked and that didn’t work out so good. But I digress.

In 5th edition, I’m not sure what the conflict resolution structure is supposed to be, or if there even is one. I know that most systems use a ‘the most recently printed thing is right’ rule, often without even codifying it, and I have a suspiscion that 5e’s actual resolution scheme is that the official rules aren’t intended to be coherent and sorting that out is the DM’s job, but I’m not sure if there’re any actual printed statement/rules about how this works somewhere.

Does 5e have any publication primacy rules similar to 3.5’s Primary Source rules and, if not, what does it have instead?

Does 5e follow the Primary Source rule?

In D&D 3.5, there exists a hierarchy of sources as a rules concept so that if something in one text contradicts a passage in another one of the sources may officially take precedence. An important benefit of this often lampooned publication paradigm is that the Core Rules– the PHB, MM, and DMG– overrule any other source that contradicts them except errata and, as a result, owning the core rules lets you know how everything in those rulebooks works; you don’t have to get any more books to find out e.g. how falling ‘actually’ works, because the rules presented in the Core set aren’t changed by anything except freely-available errata documents, at least in theory. While other books may present optional rules or new rule systems, they can’t add new rules that change, even slightly, how the old ones work and so you can be confident, if you have the core set, that you aren’t ‘missing anything’.

Of course, Wizards then did publish content (e.g. the FAQ or Rules Compendium) that wasn’t a errata and yet tried to change how things worked and that didn’t work out so good. But I digress.

In 5th edition, I’m not sure what the conflict resolution structure is supposed to be, or if there even is one. I know that most systems use a ‘the most recently printed thing is right’ rule, often without even codifying it, and I have a suspiscion that 5e’s actual resolution scheme is that the official rules aren’t intended to be coherent and sorting that out is the DM’s job, but I’m not sure if there’re any actual printed statement/rules about how this works somewhere.

Does 5e have any publication primacy rules similar to 3.5’s Primary Source rules and, if not, what does it have instead?