I am trying to create a database for hotel reservation system.
In that the Date, Reserved Time (breakfast, lunch or dinner) and Table Number all 3 candidate keys become a composite primary key. In access it's possible to make all these 3 as primary key but when I'm trying to make relationship (Ex:with customer detail table) it's impossible due to there is no unique primary key in this table.
Is there any solution for this?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5_8M-VhW5zoZ3ExRUlvakU4bzQ/view?usp=sharing
Sorry that i don't have privileges to directly add image.
Please be kind enough to refer this link.
I would recommend that you use an AutoNumber field for the primary key instead of having a composite key. Then you don't have to deal with issues like the Date field being changed in an existing record breaking relationships to other tables.
I have a Table which has a Primary Key field which is not set to auto-increment.
I want to change one of these primary keys to something different.
The problem arises with the other tables relations. The thing is, the guy who built this system did not build relations in SQL Server, but rather manually coded some override in the program that uses it - a VB 6 program.
How would I update a Primary Key and all instances of the Primary Key in other databases? I have to manually look for the instances(although I do know they are in only two tables) of the Primary Key and change them, but how do I do that?
Even though the person who first created the tables didn't include foreign keys to them, you can add them now if foreign keys are honored in your tables. When you create the foreign keys, create them with ON UPDATE CASCADE option. This way, when you update your primary key, the related foreign keys will also be updated.
One thing I would suggest is using the query of:
select * from INFORMATION_SCHEMA.Columns where Column_Name = 'FieldID'
This queries the metadata to see all where that field exists, just in case there are more. Then, just write an update script to change the key, unfortunately its a manual process but being that the relationship is missing it will make scripting easier.
I've been told that if I foreign key two tables, that SQL Server will create something akin to an index in the child table. I have a hard time believing this to be true, but can't find much out there related specifically to this.
My real reason for asking this is because we're experiencing some very slow response time in a delete statement against a table that has probably 15 related tables. I've asked our database guy and he says that if there is a foreign key on the fields, then it acts like an index. What is your experience with this? Should I add indexes on all foreign key fields or are they just unnecessary overhead?
A foreign key is a constraint, a relationship between two tables - that has nothing to do with an index per se.
However, it makes a lot of sense to index all the columns that are part of any foreign key relationship. An FK-relationship will often need to look up a relating table and extract certain rows based on a single value or a range of values.
So it makes good sense to index any columns involved in an FK, but an FK per se is not an index.
Check out Kimberly Tripp's excellent article "When did SQL Server stop putting indexes on Foreign Key columns?".
Wow, the answers are all over the map. So the Documentation says:
A FOREIGN KEY constraint is a candidate for an index because:
Changes to PRIMARY KEY constraints are checked with FOREIGN KEY constraints in related tables.
Foreign key columns are often used in join criteria when the data from related tables is combined in queries by matching the column(s) in the FOREIGN KEY constraint of one table with the primary or unique key column(s) in the other table. An index allows Microsoft® SQL Server™ 2000 to find related data in the foreign key table quickly. However, creating this index is not a requirement. Data from two related tables can be combined even if no PRIMARY KEY or FOREIGN KEY constraints are defined between the tables, but a foreign key relationship between two tables indicates that the two tables have been optimized to be combined in a query that uses the keys as its criteria.
So it seems pretty clear (although the documentation is a bit muddled) that it does not in fact create an index.
No, there is no implicit index on foreign key fields, otherwise why would Microsoft say "Creating an index on a foreign key is often useful". Your colleague may be confusing the foreign key field in the referring table with the primary key in the referred-to table - primary keys do create an implicit index.
Foreign keys do not create indexes. Only alternate key constraints(UNIQUE) and primary key constraints create indexes. This is true in Oracle and SQL Server.
In PostgeSql you can check for indexes yourself if you hit \d tablename
You will see that btree indexes have been automatically created on columns with primary key and unique constraints, but not on columns with foreign keys.
I think that answers your question at least for postgres.
Say you have a big table called orders, and a small table called customers. There is a foreign key from an order to a customer. Now if you delete a customer, Sql Server must check that there are no orphan orders; if there are, it raises an error.
To check if there are any orders, Sql Server has to search the big orders table. Now if there is an index, the search will be fast; if there is not, the search will be slow.
So in this case, the slow delete could be explained by the absence of an index. Especially if Sql Server would have to search 15 big tables without an index.
P.S. If the foreign key has ON DELETE CASCADE, Sql Server still has to search the order table, but then to remove any orders that reference the deleted customer.
SQL Server autocreates indices for Primary Keys, but not for Foreign Keys. Create the index for the Foreign Keys. It's probably worth the overhead.
It depends. On MySQL an index is created if you don't create it on your own:
MySQL requires that foreign key columns be indexed; if you create a table with a foreign key constraint but no index on a given column, an index is created.
Source: https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/constraint-foreign-key.html
The same for MySQL 5.6 eh.
Strictly speaking, foreign keys have absolutely nothing to do with indexes, yes. But, as the speakers above me pointed out, it makes sense to create one to speed up the FK-lookups. In fact, in MySQL, if you don't specify an index in your FK declaration, the engine (InnoDB) creates it for you automatically.
Not to my knowledge. A foreign key only adds a constraint that the value in the child key also be represented somewhere in the parent column. It's not telling the database that the child key also needs to be indexed, only constrained.
I notice that Entity Framework 6.1 pointed at MSSQL does automatically add indexes on foreign keys.
c# + sql server: I have to import a few tables from Access into sql server. The new sql server tables are already defined and created. The Access tables have primary key - foreign key relationships that have to be maintained. I would like to have the new sql tables use identity values for the primary keys, but I can't easily load the legacy rows and maintain the relationships if I do that. I could possibly load the data using identity_insert but I have to back way out of my ORM software (subsonic) to do that. Perhaps I can make my new primary keys non-identity types, but then there is the hassle of generating unique ids for all the rows I add later. I'm sure this has a decent solution out there somewhere.
Could you import the primary keys as non-identity types, then once all the data from all the tables is imported change them to identity types?
Create the tables with the PKs as "int" (without identity), load your data, and then change the PK fields to int identity...
I'm learning about table design in SQL and I'm wonder how to create a mapping table in order to establish a many-to-many relationship between two other tables?
I think the mapping table needs two primary keys - but I can't see how to create that as it appears there can only be 1 primary key column?
I'm using the Database Diagrams feature to create my tables and relationships.
The easiest way is to simply select both fields by selecting the first field, and then while holding down the Ctrl key selecting the second field. Then clicking the key icon to set them both as the primary key.