Subject Re: Violation of UNIQUE KEY constraint during UPDATE
Author Helmut Doll
--- In, Milan Babuskov <albis@e...>
> With one, no. But you could try with two. Suppose that you have some
> large values (ex. 10000+) that aren't taken:
> update my_table set ix = ix + 10001;
> update my_table set ix = ix - 10000;

Hello Milan,

Thanks for your advice.

Actually, I already thought of that possibility myself (after all, the
integer domain is large enough to find an unoccupied index range in
all realistic cases), I just hoped there would be a more "elegant"
solution (like some modifier to the update statement that would
determine the execution order).