I got some initial migration, that creates some related tables.
When I found out tables in scheme are named incorrectly, I decided to rename them like this
After that i tried to upgrade database (conduit db upgrade), but got issue that says:
C:\flutter_projects\dart_backend>dart run conduit:conduit db upgrade
Building package executable...
Built conduit:conduit.
— Conduit CLI Version: 4.1.6
— Conduit project version: 4.1.6
— Updating to version 2 from version 1...
Replaying versions: 1...
PostgreSQL connecting, postgres#localhost:5432/flutter-project.
Applying migration version 2...
CREATE TABLE authors (id BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY)
CREATE TABLE posts (id BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY,content TEXT NOT NULL)
CREATE TABLE users (id BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY,userName TEXT NOT NULL UNIQUE,email TEXT NOT NULL UNIQUE,password TEXT NOT NULL,accessToken TEXT NULL,refreshToken TEXT NULL)
CREATE INDEX users_userName_idx ON users (userName)
CREATE INDEX users_email_idx ON users (email)
ALTER TABLE posts ADD COLUMN author_id BIGINT NOT NULL
CREATE INDEX posts_author_id_idx ON posts (author_id)
ALTER TABLE ONLY posts ADD FOREIGN KEY (author_id) REFERENCES authors (id) ON DELETE CASCADE
DROP TABLE _Author
*** There was an issue. Reason: удалить объект таблица _author нельзÑ, так как от него завиÑÑÑ‚ другие объекты. Table: null Column: null
How can i solve this problem? Is it possible to delete tables cascade? Or can I force conduit rename instead of delete-create?
Solution was to edit migration and set correct order of table drops to exclude missing relations
database.deleteTable("_User");
database.deleteTable("_Post");
database.deleteTable("_Author");
Related
I am trying to change a primary key Id to identity to increment 1 on each entry. But the column has been referenced already by other tables. Is there any way to set primary key to auto increment without dropping the foreign keys from other tables?
If the table isn't that large generate script to create an identical table but change the schema it created to:
CREATE TABLE MYTABLE_NEW (
PK INT PRIMARY KEY IDENTITY(1,1),
COL1 TYPEx,
COL2 TYPEx,
COLn
...)
Set your database to single-user mode or make sure no one is in the
database or tables you're changing or change the table you need to
change to READ/ONLY.
Import your data into MYTABLE_NEW from MYTABLE using set IDENTITY_INSERT on
Script your foreign key constraints and save them--in case you need
to back out of your change later and/or re-implement them.
Drop all the constraints from MYTABLE
Rename MYTABLE to MYTABLE_SAV
Rename MYTABLE_NEW to MYTABLE
Run constraint scripts to re-implement constraints on MYTABLE
p.s.
you did ask if there was a way to not drop the foreign key constraints. Here's something to try on your test system. on Step 4 run
ALTER TABLE MYTABLE NOCHECK CONSTRAINT ALL
and on Step 7 ALTER TABLE MYTABLE CHECK CONSTRAINT ALL. I've not tried this myself -- interesting to see if this would actually work on renamed tables.
You can script all this ahead of time on a test SQL Server or even a copy of the database staged on a production server--to make implementation day a no-brainer and gauge your SLAs for any change control procedures for your company.
You can do a similar methodology by deleting the primary key and re-adding it back, but you'll need to have the same data inserted in the new column before you delete the old column. So you'll be deleting and inserting schema and inserting primary key data with this approach. I like to avoid touching a production table if at all possible and having MYTABLE_SAV around in case "anything" unexpected occurs is a comfort to me personally--as I can tell management "the production data was not touched". But some tables are simply too large for this approach to be worthwhile and, also, tastes and methodologies differ largely from DBA to DBA.
Hello I have a scenario where I have multiple SQL databases, and a tool on a central database which connects to each user table on each database and builds a dataset.
The issue happens when say a user from one database is migrated to another. When the tool runs it encounters an issue because the user_id is a guid pk, and since users have been migrated across databases the dataset will end up having duplicate private keys in the final dataset.
My question, if I want to regenerate the user id guid for some user,
I of course have to also update all of the connecting foreign keys. Is
there a command in MS SQL to regenerate the GUID and also do so for
all connecting relationships?
ON UPDATE CASCADE is what you want, but you need to define it in the foreign key relationship ahead of time.
CREATE TABLE User (UserID UNIQUEIDENTIFIER, UserName varchar(30), ... )
CREATE TABLE UserData (DataID UNIQUEIDENTIFIER, UserID UNIQUEIDENTIIFER, ...)
ALTER TABLE UserData
ADD CONSTRAINT FK_UserData_UserID (UserID) REFERENCES User(UserID)
ON UPDATE CASCADE;
I am using SQL Server 2012 and need to add a column with a unique primary key. I am about to load several hundred thousand records BULK and just discovered repetition in the field I was going to use. Have seen SEQUENCE and GUID. Need some guidance on the best choice and how to go about setting this up so that the key field is populated during the bulk load.
When you create your table in which you want to insert information create an IDENTITY column. That will serve as an auto-populating column with a unique number for each record.
Here is a link that might help you.
If you have already created your table just change this query to what suits to your table name and run it in order to add the new column you requested.
ALTER TABLE mytable
ADD COLUMN unique_id IDENTITY (1,1)
Just a slight update on what’s already posted that includes details for adding primary key constraint
alter table database.schema.table_t
add ID_column int identity(1,1)
primary key (ID_column)
If you already set the primary key on this table just go and remove it before you execute this statement.
To work with our database project in VS 2010, we make schema changes directly into our local project database using SSMS, then when we are ready to check in we do a Schema Compare, the local database vs the project, which identifies our changes. Then when we Write Changes, it alters or creates schema object scripts into our database project. If all looks well, we can then check in those changes to TFS.
Our standard on foreign keys and indices is to have those saved separately. That is, even though I define a column in a new table by saying something like this:
CREATE TABLE Billing.EntryPointProduct
(
EntryPointProductId INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY,
EntryPointId INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES Billing.EntryPoint(EntryPointId),
ProductId INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES ProductCatalog.Product(ProductID)
)
What we really want, in the end, is a file for the EntryPointProduct table and a file for each of the Foreign Key objects. However, right now the schema compare is producing it all in one table script. I swear I have done this before with schema compare, but I can't seem to find the way to configure it to do this. Can anyone advise?
Can you change your DDL so it looks like this:
CREATE TABLE Billing.EntryPointProduct
(
EntryPointProductId INT IDENTITY(1,1),
EntryPointId INT,
ProductId INT,
CONSTRAINT [PK_EntryPointProduct] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (EntryPointProductId)
)
ALTER TABLE Billing.EntryPointProduct
WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK_EntryPointProduct_EntryPoint FOREIGN KEY(EntryPointId) REFERENCES Billing.EntryPoint(EntryPointId)
ALTER TABLE Billing.EntryPointProduct
WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT FK_EntryPointProduct_ProductCatalog FOREIGN KEY(ProductId) REFERENCES ProductCatalog.Product(ProductID)
That way you'd have 3 different files, and your FK's would have real names (FK_*) instead of system-generated names which will be randomly generated each time they are created and therefore won't match if you did a schema compare between 2 separately scripted out databases. (Same reason why I modified the PK code)
I am having a bit of trouble creating a foreign key in my DB. Here is a paraphrased model of what my tables look like:
NOTE
* (PK) NOTE_ID BIGINT
* TITLE VARCHAR(200)
* DATE DATETIME
* SERIES_ID BIGINT
SERIES
* (PK) SERIES_ID BIGINT
* TITLE VARCHAR(200)
* DESCR VARCHAR(1000)
I am trying to create a "has a" relationship between NOTE and SERIES by SERIES_ID. I thought that setting up a foreign key between the two tables by SERIES_ID would be the solution, but when I attempt to create it I get the following error:
ERROR: There are no primary or candidate keys in the referenced table 'dbo.SERIES' that match the referencing column list in the
foreign key 'FK_SERIES_NOTE'. Could not create constraint
I'm using the web database manager that comes with the GoDaddy SQL Server I set up, so I'm not sure what the underlying query it's trying to use or I would post it.
At the end of the day, this is all to create a relationship so that the NHibernate mappings for my Note object will contain a one-to-one relationship to a Series object. I may not even be trying to tackle this the correct way with the foreign key, though.
Am I going about this the correct way?
EDIT:
In an attempt to pair down the tables to a more simple example, I removed what I thought to be several non-critical columns. However, I ended up leaving a field that was actually a part of the composite primary key on the series table. So, because I was trying to assign the foreign key to only one part of the composite key, it was not allowing me to do so.
In the end, I have taken another look at the structure of my table and found that I don't actually need the other piece of the composite key - and after removing, the assignment of the foreign key works great now.
If you can, you may try running the following statement in a query analyzer and see the resulting error message (I guess #Damien_The_Unbeliever is right ) :
ALTER TABLE NOTE ADD CONSTRAINT FK_SERIES_NOTE
FOREIGN KEY (SERIES_ID) REFERENCES SERIES(SERIES_ID)
--ON DELETE CASCADE
-- uncomment the preceding line if you want a delete on a serie
-- to automatically delete all notes on this serie
Hope this will help