Related
When we create relational database tables, we have to use foreign key columns. It is obvious, otherwise we can not create relationships.
However, I noticed that it is enough to have a foreign key column, you do not need to say that there is a foreign key relationship in table A with table B.
As long as you can write the queries you can retrieve the data.
Do we use this concept for make thing easy? I know, when I look at a database table schema which has marked what columns are foreign key columns, it is easy to understand and start to work with it.
Is there any other reasons?
The point is Referential integrity. If you don't enforce it, sooner or later a bug in the code or some other accident happens and your database is left in an inconsistent state. These inconsistencies are very hard or impossible to fix afterwards.
When we create relational database tables, we have to use foreign key
columns. It is obvious, otherwise we can not create relationships.
Incorrect. You do not need to create foreign keys (though it's a good idea), and they do not represent relationships. They enforce the integrity of the relationship. A foreign key makes sure that a value in one column exists in another column.
However, I noticed that it is enough to have a foreign key column, you
do not need to say that there is a foreign key relationship in table A
with table B. As long as you can write the queries you can retrieve the data.
Yes, the relationship is based on the data itself, not by the inclusion of a foreign key. Also, foreign keys do not need to be between two tables, a table can have a foreign key to itself.
Do we use this concept for make thing easy?
No, we use foreign keys to enforce integrity. That they happen to make ERD diagrams easier to understand is simply a bonus.
I have two tables:
User (username, password)
Profile (profileId, gender, dateofbirth, ...)
Currently I'm using this approach: each Profile record has a field named "userId" as foreign key which links to the User table. When a user registers, his Profile record is automatically created.
I'm confused with my friend suggestion: to have the "userId" field as the foreign and primary key and delete the "profileId" field. Which approach is better?
Foreign keys are almost always "Allow Duplicates," which would make them unsuitable as Primary Keys.
Instead, find a field that uniquely identifies each record in the table, or add a new field (either an auto-incrementing integer or a GUID) to act as the primary key.
The only exception to this are tables with a one-to-one relationship, where the foreign key and primary key of the linked table are one and the same.
Primary keys always need to be unique, foreign keys need to allow non-unique values if the table is a one-to-many relationship. It is perfectly fine to use a foreign key as the primary key if the table is connected by a one-to-one relationship, not a one-to-many relationship. If you want the same user record to have the possibility of having more than 1 related profile record, go with a separate primary key, otherwise stick with what you have.
Yes, it is legal to have a primary key being a foreign key. This is a rare construct, but it applies for:
a 1:1 relation. The two tables cannot be merged in one because of different permissions and privileges only apply at table level (as of 2017, such a database would be odd).
a 1:0..1 relation. Profile may or may not exist, depending on the user type.
performance is an issue, and the design acts as a partition: the profile table is rarely accessed, hosted on a separate disk or has a different sharding policy as compared to the users table. Would not make sense if the underlining storage is columnar.
Yes, a foreign key can be a primary key in the case of one to one relationship between those tables
I would not do that. I would keep the profileID as primary key of the table Profile
A foreign key is just a referential constraint between two tables
One could argue that a primary key is necessary as the target of any foreign keys which refer to it from other tables. A foreign key is a set of one or more columns in any table (not necessarily a candidate key, let alone the primary key, of that table) which may hold the value(s) found in the primary key column(s) of some other table. So we must have a primary key to match the foreign key.
Or must we? The only purpose of the primary key in the primary key/foreign key pair is to provide an unambiguous join - to maintain referential integrity with respect to the "foreign" table which holds the referenced primary key. This insures that the value to which the foreign key refers will always be valid (or null, if allowed).
http://www.aisintl.com/case/primary_and_foreign_key.html
It is generally considered bad practise to have a one to one relationship. This is because you could just have the data represented in one table and achieve the same result.
However, there are instances where you may not be able to make these changes to the table you are referencing. In this instance there is no problem using the Foreign key as the primary key. It might help to have a composite key consisting of an auto incrementing unique primary key and the foreign key.
I am currently working on a system where users can log in and generate a registration code to use with an app. For reasons I won't go into I am unable to simply add the columns required to the users table. So I am going down a one to one route with the codes table.
It depends on the business and system.
If your userId is unique and will be unique all the time, you can use userId as your primary key. But if you ever want to expand your system, it will make things difficult. I advise you to add a foreign key in table user to make a relationship with table profile instead of adding a foreign key in table profile.
Short answer: DEPENDS.... In this particular case, it might be fine. However, experts will recommend against it just about every time; including your case.
Why?
Keys are seldomly unique in tables when they are foreign (originated in another table) to the table in question. For example, an item ID might be unique in an ITEMS table, but not in an ORDERS table, since the same type of item will most likely exist in another order. Likewise, order IDs might be unique (might) in the ORDERS table, but not in some other table like ORDER_DETAILS where an order with multiple line items can exist and to query against a particular item in a particular order, you need the concatenation of two FK (order_id and item_id) as the PK for this table.
I am not DB expert, but if you can justify logically to have an auto-generated value as your PK, I would do that. If this is not practical, then a concatenation of two (or maybe more) FK could serve as your PK. BUT, I cannot think of any case where a single FK value can be justified as the PK.
It is not totally applied for the question's case, but since I ended up on this question serching for other info and by reading some comments, I can say it is possible to only have a FK in a table and get unique values.
You can use a column that have classes, which can only be assigned 1 time, it works almost like and ID, however it could be done in the case you want to use a unique categorical value that distinguish each record.
Making a primary key in a table in database is fine. Making a Composite Primary is also fine. But why cant I have 2 primary keys in a table? What kind of problems may occur if we have 2 primary keys.
Suppose I have a Students table. I don't want Roll No. and Names of each student to be unique. Then why can't I create 2 primary keys in a table? I don't see any logical problem in it now. But definitely I am missing a serious issue that's the reason it does not exist.
I am new in databases, so don't have much idea. It may also create a technical issue rather. Will be happy if someone can educate me on this.
Thanks.
You can create a UNIQUE constraint for both columns UNIQUE(roll,name).
The PK is unique by definition, cause it is used to identify a row from the others, for example, when a foreign key references that table, it is referencing the PK.
If you need another column to 'act' like a PK, give it the attributes unique and not null.
Well, this is simply by definition. There can not be two "primary" conditions, just like there can not be two "latest" versions.
Every table can contain more than one unique keys, but if you decide to have a primary key, this is just one of these unique keys, the "one" you deem the "most important", which identifies every record uniquely.
If you have a table and come to the conclusion that your primary key does not uniquely identify each record (also meaning that there can't be two records with the same values for the primary key), you have chosen the wrong primary key, as by definition, the fields of the primary key must uniquely define each record.
That, however, does not mean there can be no other combination of fields uniquely identifying the record! This is where a second feature kicks in: referential integrity.
You can "link" tables using their primary key. For example: If you have a Customer table and an Orders table, where the Customers table has a primary key on the customer number and the Orders table has a primary key on the order number and the customer number, that means:
Every customer can be identified uniquely by his customer number
Every order is uniquely identified by the order number and the customer number
You can then link the two tables on the customer number. The DB system then ensures several things, among which is the fact that you can not remove a customer who has orders in your database without first removing the orders. Otherwise, you would have orders without being able to find out the customer data, which would violate your database's referential integrity.
If you had two primary keys, the system would not know on which to ensure referential integrity, so you'd have to tell the system which key to use - which would make one of the primary keys more important, which would make it the "primary key" (!) of the primary keys.
You can have multiple candidate keys in a table but by convention only one key per table is called "primary". That's just a convention though and it doesn't make any real difference to the function of the keys. A primary key is no different to any other candidate key. If you find it convenient to call more than one key "primary" then I suggest you do so. In my opinion (I'm not the only one) the idea of designating a "primary" key at all is essentially an outdated concept of very little importance in database design.
You might be interested to know that early papers on the relational database model (e.g. by E.F.Codd, the relational model's inventor) actually used the term "primary key" to describe all the keys of a relation and not just one. So there is a perfectly good precedent for multiple primary keys per table. The idea of designating exactly one primary key is more recent and probably came into common use through the popularity of ER modelling techniques.
Create an unique index on the 2nd attribute (Names), it's almost the same as primary key with another name.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_key):
A table can have at most one primary key, but more than one unique
key. A primary key is a combination of columns which uniquely specify
a row. It is a special case of unique keys. One difference is that
primary keys have an implicit NOT NULL constraint while unique keys do
not. Thus, the values in unique key columns may or may not be NULL,
and in fact such a column may contain at most one NULL fields.
Another difference is that primary keys must be defined using another
syntax.
For example, I have a table that stores classes, and a table that stores class_attributes. class_attributes has a class_attribute_id and a class_id, while classes has a class_id.
I'd guess if a dataset is "a solely child of" or "belongs solely to" or "is solely owned by", then I need a FK to identify the parent. Without class_id in the class_attributes table I could never find out to which class this attribute belongs to.
Maybe there's an helpful answer matrix for this?
Wikipedia is helpful.
In the context of relational
databases, a foreign key is a
referential constraint between two
tables.1 The foreign key identifies
a column or a set of columns in one
(referencing) table that refers to a
column or set of columns in another
(referenced) table. The columns in the
referencing table must be the primary
key or other candidate key in the
referenced table.
(and it goes on into more and more detail)
If you want to enforce the constraint that each row in class_attributes applies to exactly one row of classes, you need a foreign key. If you don't care about enforcing this (ie, you're fine to have attributes for non-existent classes), you don't need an FK.
I don't have an answer matrix, but just for clarification purposes, we're talking about Database Normalization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
And to a certain extent Denormalization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denormalization
I would say, it's the other way around. First, you design what kind of objects you need to have. For those will create a table.
Part of this phase is designing the keys, that is the combinations of attributes (columns) that uniquely identify the object. You may or may not add an artificial key or surrogate key for convenience or performance reasons. From these keys, you typically elect one canonical key, the primary key, which you try to use consistently to identify objects in that table (you keep the other keys too, they serve to ensure unicity as a business rule, not so much for identificattion purposes.)
Then, you think what relationships exist between the objects. An object that is 'owned' by another object, or an object that refers to another object needs some way to identify its related object. In the corresponding table (child table) you add columns to make a foreign key to point to the primary key of the referenced table.
This takes care of all one to many relationships.
Sometimes, an object can be related multiple times to another object. For example, an order can be used to order multiple products, but a product can appear on multiple orders as well. For those relationships, you design a separate table (intersection table - in this example, order_items). This table will have a unique key created from two foreign keys: one pointing to the one parent (orders), one to the other parent (products). And again, you add the columns to the intersection table that you need to create those foreign keys.
So in short, you first design keys and foreign keys, only then you start adding columns to implement them.
Don't be concerned with the type of relationship -- it has more to do with the cardinality of the relationship.
If you have a one-to-many relationship, then you'd want to assign a Primary Key to the smaller of the tables, and store it as a Foreign Key in the larger table.
You'd also do it with one-to-one relationships, but some people argue that you should avoid them.
In the case of a many-to-many relationship, you'd want to make a join table, and then have each of the original tables have a foreign key to the join table.
I have the following tables in my database that have a many-to-many relationship, which is expressed by a connecting table that has foreign keys to the primary keys of each of the main tables:
Widget: WidgetID (PK), Title, Price
User: UserID (PK), FirstName, LastName
Assume that each User-Widget combination is unique. I can see two options for how to structure the connecting table that defines the data relationship:
UserWidgets1: UserWidgetID (PK), WidgetID (FK), UserID (FK)
UserWidgets2: WidgetID (PK, FK), UserID (PK, FK)
Option 1 has a single column for the Primary Key. However, this seems unnecessary since the only data being stored in the table is the relationship between the two primary tables, and this relationship itself can form a unique key. Thus leading to option 2, which has a two-column primary key, but loses the one-column unique identifier that option 1 has. I could also optionally add a two-column unique index (WidgetID, UserID) to the first table.
Is there any real difference between the two performance-wise, or any reason to prefer one approach over the other for structuring the UserWidgets many-to-many table?
You only have one primary key in either case. The second one is what's called a compound key. There's no good reason for introducing a new column. In practise, you will have to keep a unique index on all candidate keys. Adding a new column buys you nothing but maintenance overhead.
Go with option 2.
Personally, I would have the synthetic/surrogate key column in many-to-many tables for the following reasons:
If you've used numeric synthetic keys in your entity tables then having the same on the relationship tables maintains consistency in design and naming convention.
It may be the case in the future that the many-to-many table itself becomes a parent entity to a subordinate entity that needs a unique reference to an individual row.
It's not really going to use that much additional disk space.
The synthetic key is not a replacement to the natural/compound key nor becomes the PRIMARY KEY for that table just because it's the first column in the table, so I partially agree with the Josh Berkus article. However, I don't agree that natural keys are always good candidates for PRIMARY KEY's and certainly should not be used if they are to be used as foreign keys in other tables.
Option 2 uses a simple compund key, option 1 uses a surrogate key. Option 2 is preferred in most scenarios and is close to the relational model in that it is a good candidate key.
There are situations where you may want to use a surrogate key (Option 1)
You are not certain that the compound key is a good candidate key over time. Particularly with temporal data (data that changes over time). What if you wanted to add another row to the UserWidget table with the same UserId and WidgetId? Think of Employment(EmployeeId,EmployeeId) - it would work in most cases except if someone went back to work for the same employer at a later date
If you are creating messages/business transactions or something similar that requires an easier key to use for integration. Replication maybe?
If you want to create your own auditing mechanisms (or similar) and don't want keys to get too long.
As a rule of thumb, when modeling data you will find that most associative entities (many to many) are the result of an event. Person takes up employment, item is added to basket etc. Most events have a temporal dependency on the event, where the date or time is relevant - in which case a surrogate key may be the best alternative.
So, take option 2, but make sure that you have the complete model.
I agree with the previous answers but I have one remark to add.
If you want to add more information to the relation and allow more relations between the same two entities you need option one.
For example if you want to track all the times user 1 has used widget 664 in the userwidget table the userid and widgetid isn't unique anymore.
What is the benefit of a primary key in this scenario? Consider the option of no primary key:
UserWidgets3: WidgetID (FK), UserID (FK)
If you want uniqueness then use either the compound key (UserWidgets2) or a uniqueness constraint.
The usual performance advantage of having a primary key is that you often query the table by the primary key, which is fast. In the case of many-to-many tables you don't usually query by the primary key so there is no performance benefit. Many-to-many tables are queried by their foreign keys, so you should consider adding indexes on WidgetID and UserID.
Option 2 is the correct answer, unless you have a really good reason to add a surrogate numeric key (which you have done in option 1).
Surrogate numeric key columns are not 'primary keys'. Primary keys are technically one of the combination of columns that uniquely identify a record within a table.
Anyone building a database should read this article http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/database-soup/primary-keyvil-part-i-7327 by Josh Berkus to understand the difference between surrogate numeric key columns and primary keys.
In my experience the only real reason to add a surrogate numeric key to your table is if your primary key is a compound key and needs to be used as a foreign key reference in another table. Only then should you even think to add an extra column to the table.
Whenever I see a database structure where every table has an 'id' column the chances are it has been designed by someone who doesn't appreciate the relational model and it will invariably display one or more of the problems identified in Josh's article.
I would go with both.
Hear me out:
The compound key is obviously the nice, correct way to go in so far as reflecting the meaning of your data goes. No question.
However: I have had all sorts of trouble making hibernate work properly unless you use a single generated primary key - a surrogate key.
So I would use a logical and physical data model. The logical one has the compound key. The physical model - which implements the logical model - has the surrogate key and foreign keys.
Since each User-Widget combination is unique, you should represent that in your table by making the combination unique. In other words, go with option 2. Otherwise you may have two entries with the same widget and user IDs but different user-widget IDs.
The userwidgetid in the first table is not needed, as like you said the uniqueness comes from the combination of the widgetid and the userid.
I would use the second table, keep the foriegn keys and add a unique index on widgetid and userid.
So:
userwidgets( widgetid(fk), userid(fk),
unique_index(widgetid, userid)
)
There is some preformance gain in not having the extra primary key, as the database would not need to calculate the index for the key. In the above model though this index (through the unique_index) is still calculated, but I believe that this is easier to understand.