So I am creating a database comparator, that relies on Liquibase diff to figure out differences. One of the requirements is that I can tell constraint name changes, but Liquibase does not handle these in primary keys, foreign keys, indexes, and possibly others. Any idea what can I do so Liquibase recognizes them, and no longer thinks two constraints with different names are the same?
Related
I have a table with a unique constraint on event_time and card_nr, nevertheless, I'm still able to insert duplicate values to the table using the statements below.
The screenshot below shows the table I used as well as my DDL & insert queries.
There is also an EXPLAIN statement to prove that the columns are unique.
An error should be thrown since I'm violating my constraint values?
Supported Constraint Types
Snowflake supports the following constraint types from the ANSI SQL standard:
UNIQUE
PRIMARY KEY
FOREIGN KEY
NOT NULL
...
Snowflake supports defining and maintaining constraints, but does not enforce them, except for NOT NULL constraints, which are always enforced.
What is the point of supporting a unique constraint but not enforcing it?
Constraints
Constraints are provided primarily for data modeling purposes and compatibility with other databases, as well as to support client tools that utilize constraints. For example, Tableau supports using constraints to perform join culling (join elimination), which can improve the performance of generated queries and cube refresh.
Do database engines utilize foreign keys transparently or a query should explicitly use them?
Based on my experience there is no explicit notion of foreign keys on a table, except that a constraint that maintains uniqueness of the key and the fact that the key (single or a group of fields) is a key which makes search efficient.
To clarify this, here is an example why it is important: I have a middleware (in particular ArcGIS for my case), for which I can control the back-end database (so I can create keys, indices, etc.) and I usually use the front (a RESTful API here). The middleware itself is a black box and to provide effective tools to take advantage of the underlying DBMS's capabilities. So what I want to understand is that if I build foreign key constraints and use queries that if implemented normally would translate into queries that would use those foreign keys, should I see performance improvements?
Is that generally the case or various engines do it differently? (I am using PostgresSQL).
Foreign keys aren't there to improve performance. They're there to enforce data integrity. They will decrease performance for inserts/updates/deletes, but they make no difference to queries.
Some DBMSs will automatically add an index to the foreign key field, which may be where the confusion is coming from. Postgres does not do this; you'll need to create the index yourself. (And yes, the database will use this index transparently.)
As far as I know Database engines needs specific queries to use foreign keys. You have to write some sort of join queries to get data from related tables.
However some Data access framework hides the complexity of accessing data from foreign keys by providing transparent way of accessing data from related tables but I am not sure that may provide much improvement in performance.
This is completely depends on the database engine.
In PostgreSQL constraints won't cause performance improvements directly, only indexes will do that.
CREATE INDEX is a PostgreSQL language extension. There are no provisions for indexes in the SQL standard.
However, adding some constraints will automatically create an index for that column(s) -- f.ex. UNIQUE & PRIMARY KEY constraints creates a btree index on the affected column(s).
The FOREIGN KEY constraint won't create indexes on the referencing column(s), but:
A foreign key must reference columns that either are a primary key or form a unique constraint. This means that the referenced columns always have an index (the one underlying the primary key or unique constraint); so checks on whether a referencing row has a match will be efficient. Since a DELETE of a row from the referenced table or an UPDATE of a referenced column will require a scan of the referencing table for rows matching the old value, it is often a good idea to index the referencing columns too. Because this is not always needed, and there are many choices available on how to index, declaration of a foreign key constraint does not automatically create an index on the referencing columns.
I have a tool which uses SQL scripts to apply changes to a customer database. Often this invloves changing a column definition (datatype etc). The problem is that often there are primary keys applied by the user that we don't know about (and they don't remember), which trips up the process (eg when changing columns belonging to the indexes or primary keys).
The requirement given to me is that this update process should be 'seamless', with no human involvement to prepare the ground. I have also researched this on this forum, and as far as I can see my particular question has not yet been asked.
I know how to disable and then later rebuild all indexes on a database, and even those only in certain tables, but if the index is on a primary key I still can't change any column that is part of the primary key unless I explicitly drop the PK by name, and later recreate it explicitly, which means I have to know about it at code-time. I can probably write a query to find the name of the primary key on a table if one is there, but how to know how to recreate it?
How can I, using Transact-SQL (or PL/SQL), detect, drop and then recreate the primary keys on given tables, without knowing at code time what they are or what columns belong to them? The key is that the tool cannot know in advance what the primary keys are are on any given table, nor what they comprise. The SQL code must handle this itself.
Better still would be to detect if a known column belongs to a primary key, then drop and later recreate that after I have changed the column.
This needs to be done in both Oracle and Sql Server, ideally purely with SQL code.
TIA
I really don't understand why would a customer define his own primary keys for the tables? Moreover, I don't understand why would you let them? In my world, if customer changes schema in any way, this automatically means end of support for them.
I will strongly advise against dropping and recreating primary keys on production database. Any number of bad things can happen, leading to data loss.
And it's not just the PKs, you will have to drop the foreign key constraints first. And FKs may reference not only the PKs but the unique constraints as well, so yao have to deal with those as well.
Your best bet would be to create a new table with the required schema, copy the data, drop original table and rename the new one. Of course, you will have to handle the FKs, but it's easier. Check this link an example:
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/john_paul_cook/archive/2009/09/17/script-to-create-all-foreign-keys.aspx
I'm attempiting to use cx_OracleTool's CopyData.py script to copy data between two tables on separate Oracle schemas/instances:
http://cx-oracletools.sourceforge.net/cx_OracleTools.html
When I run it against my tables, I get the error:
No primary or unique constraint found on table.
I don't know much about Oracle, to be honest, but from what I can tell the tables don't seem to have any PK constraint or anything like that defined.
The merits of this aside, I think it's simply been setup that way for expediency, and it's unlikely to change anytime nearterm.
Is there any way to get copyData.py to run in this scenario without a PK constraint?
Cheers,
Victor
The issue is that CopyData checks to see if the row exists in the destination table, and it can't do that without a unique key.
If it is acceptable to insert all rows and not update changed ones, use the --no-check-exists option. According to the code this will bypass the primary key check.
Otherwise, use the --key-columns=COLS option to manually specify the columns to be used as the unique key. This will also bypass the primary key check.
I have two tables 'Elements' and 'Lists'
Lists has a primary key and a list name.
Elements has data pertaining to an individual entry in the list.
Elements needs a column that holds which list the element is in.
I've read about SQL's foreign key constraint and figure that is the best way to link the tables, but I'm using SQLite which doesn't enforce the foerign key constraint.
Is there a point to declaring the foreign key constraint if there is no enforcement?
It's always good to do, even if your database doesn't enforce the constraint (old MySQL, for instance). The reasoning for this, is that someday, someone will try reading your schema (perhaps even yourself).
If you can't use the new version, you can still declare the constraint and enforce it with triggers. In either case, I wouldn't omit the notation. It's far too helpful.
Nowadays sqlite enforces foreign keys, download the new release.
A foreign key is a field (or fields)
that points to the primary key of
another table. The purpose of the
foreign key is to ensure referential
integrity of the data. In other words,
only values that are supposed to
appear in the database are permitted.
It only enforces the "business rule". If you require this from the business side, then yes, it is required.
Indexing will not be affected.
You can still create indexes as requred.
Have a look at Foreign Key
and
Wikipedia Foreign key