i am having a hard time creating an ERD for my table relationship. I have 4 tables: film, ticket_type, studio, and schedule. The schedule table is a relationship table that contain the primary key from the other three tables as foreign key. The question is how can i picture it in ERD? Something like many-to-many relationship but with 3 table, is it possible to do it like this? The database works fine when i try to create it so i think there's no problem in my concept. Thanks in advance.
Edit: forgot to add the ticket_type table is for pricing and type like: 2d,3d,or 4d, i create it like this to avoid redundancy.
One more question, can i add another field to a relationship table? If I remember correctly it should be fine, but just to make sure.
If schedule is a relationship, it would be represented as follows on an entity-relationship diagram:
Relationships are identified by the keys of the related entities. A table diagram makes this more visible:
However, if schedule is an entity set with relationships to the other 3 entity sets, it would be represented as follows on an ER diagram:
If we map every entity set and relationship to its own table, we get the following table diagram:
However, if we denormalize the relationship tables into the schedule table (since they all have the same primary key), our table diagram changes to:
Compare this with the first table diagram. While these physical models are very similar, they derive from very different conceptual models. Strictly speaking, I think both "entity table" and "relationship table" are inappropriate for the denormalized schedule table. In the network data model, we would call it an associative entity (but that's not the same as associative entities in the ER model).
Finally, relationships can have attributes too:
Related
I have the following as my ER Diagram. I am still learning DBMS, and trying to translate this ER Diagram to a Relational Schema. I know that each entity in the ER Diagram will have a separate table. However, I am not sure what to do about the relationship for this particular ER Diagram. We were told that each relationship between the entities will have a table too. Therefore, do I need to make separate for relationships in this ER Diagram as well? But, there are no attributes of the relationship. Also, I am having a confusion in what sort of relationship is this exactly? Is this one to many?
I am attaching the link to the picture of the ER Diagram. Please guide me in the right direction. Thanks!
Your diagram isn't an ER diagram in the original sense of that term. In the entity-relationship model, relationships are associations among entity sets and were meant to be implemented as tables. For example, your AUTHOR_BOOK, CAST and PURCHASE tables are relationship tables that associate two entity sets each (keep in mind that relationships aren't limited to just two entity sets). Note how the relationships are represented using the keys of the entity sets e.g. (actorID, inventID). The same pattern can be found in some of your other tables, i.e. (inventID, publisher), (inventID, director), (inventoryID, genre), (inventoryID, supplier), (receiptID, inventID) and (receiptID, customerID). These are your relationships - not the crow's foot lines which are just foreign key constraints. In Chen's original notation, the relationships would be indicated using diamond shapes between and connected to the two entity types. Also, Chen would've made a separate relationship table (aka junction table) for each of these relationships.
Your table diagram shows 14 tables. Following Chen's method, there would be 19 tables:
Your title references a relational schema. Note that relational schemas are not restricted to the entity-relationship model, but can represent any set of normalized tables (1NF or higher). The number of tables would partially depend on the level of normalization.
But, there are no attributes of the relationship.
This is not correct. Your Purchase relationship shows two attributes - quantity and amountPaid. Note that an attribute is a mapping from an entity or relationship set to a value set. Thus, I'm not counting the entity keys as attributes of the relationship. I also modeled Book's pubYear as an attribute of the relationship between Book and Publisher.
In practice, I would probably denormalize relations with the same determinant, which give a physical schema similar to your original diagram, though implementing every relationship table separately does have some advantage in easing schema changes when relationship cardinalities change.
I have couple of tables and a junction table in between.
AspNetUsers and Tenant tables are already added in my Entity Framework.
But once I add UserTenant table, it ends up as association instead of entity.
Can someone enlighten me why this happens?
This happens because the only function of this junction table is to create a many to many relation.
When EF finds a table which only have columns which are FKs to other tables, and they compose the primary key, it simply converts it to a many-to-many relation.
If you need to have access to the junction table, you ned to break that rule. The easiest way to do so is adding a new column to the junction table which is not part of an FK, neither the PK. If you do so, the junction table will become an entity in your model. But you will lose the easy way to navigate to relate entities (it's still possible, but a bit harder). See this for more details
You can also read this article, which offers an alternate way of doing this, if you use Code First. If you read it, don't miss the comments. There are several very interesting
I understand what cardinality is, so please don't explain that ;-)
I would like to know, what the purpose of doing cardinality is in data modeling, and why i should care.
Example: In an ER model you make relations and ad the cardinality to the relations.
When am i going to use the cardinality further in the development process? Why should i care about the cardinality?
How, when and where do i use the cardinalities after i finish an ER model for example.
Thanks :-)
Cardinalities tell you something important about table design. A 1:m relationship requires a foreign key column in the child table pointing back to the parent primary key column. A many-to-many relationship means a JOIN table with foreign keys pointing back to the two participants.
How, when and where do i use the cardinalities after i finish an ER model for example.
When physically creating the database, the direction, NULL-ability and number of FKs depends on the cardinalities on both endpoints of the relationship in the ER diagram. It may even "add" or "remove" some tables and keys.
For example:
A "1:N" relationship is represented as a NOT NULL FK from the "N" table to "1" table. You cannot do it in the opposite direction and retain the same meaning.
A "0..1:N" relationship is represented as a NULL-able FK from "N" to "0..1" table.
A "1:1" relationship is represented by two NOT NULL FKs (that are also keys) forming a circular reference1 or by merging two entities into a single physical table.
A "0..1:1" relationship is represented by two FKs, one of which is NULL-able (also under keys).
A "0..1:0..1" relationship is represented by two FKs, both NULL-able and under keys, or by a junction table with specially crafted keys.
An "M:N" relationship requires an additional (so called "junction" or "link") table. A key of that table is a combination of migrated keys from child tables.
Not all cardinalities can be (easily) represented declaratively in the physical database, but fortunately those that can tend to be most useful...
1 Which presents a chicken-and-egg problem when inserting new data, which is typically resolved by deferring constraint checking to the end of the transaction.
Cardinality is a vital piece of information of a relation between two entites. You need them for later models when the actual table architecture is being modelled. Without knowing the relationship cardinality, one cannot model the tables and key restriction between them.
For example, a car must have exactly 4 wheels and those wheels must be attached to exactly one car. Without cardinality, you could have a car with 3, 1, 0, 12, etc... wheels, which moreover could be shared among other cars. Of course, depending on the context, this can make sense, but it usually doesn't.
A data model is a set of constraints; without constraints, anything would be possible. Cardinality is a (special kind of) constraint. In most cultures, a marriage is a relation between exactly two persons. (In some cultures these persons must have different gender.)
The problem with data modelling is that you have to specify the constraints you wish to impose on the data. Some constraints (unique, foreign key) are more important, and less dependent on the problem domain as others ("salary < 100000"). In most cases Cardinality will be somewhere in between crucial and bogus.
If you are creating the data layer of an application and you decided to use an ORM, maybe it's entity framework.
There's a point when you need to create your models and your model maps. At that point you would be able to pull out your ERD, review the cardinality you put on your diagram and create the correct relationships so your data layer shape matched your database shape.
When having a one-to-one relationship in a database the other table has a foreign key ID (in this example). And in a one-to-many relationship the table contains many foreign keys.
But does the database know whether this is a one-to-one or one-to-many relationship? Are the relationships that I make in an ER-Diagram only to indicate where there should be foreign keys when making the actual tables?
What is the difference between one-to-one and one-to-many relationship in a database?
In a sense, all the relationships we talk about are not known to the database, they are constructs we have invented to better understand how to design the tables.
The big difference in terms of table structure between one-to-one and one-to-many is that in one-to-one it is possible (but not necessary) to have a bidirectional relationship, meaning table A can have a foreign key into table B, and table B can have a foreign key into the associated record in table A. This is not possible with a one-to-many relationship.
One-to-one relationships associate one record in one table with a single record in the other table. One-to-many relationships associate one record in one table with many records in the other table.
To enable one-to-one relationship you need to add unique constraint to foreign key. It is not possible to have two foreign keys for each table as it will be impossible to create records.
Im having trouble understanding what the actual question is.
Your analysis is for the most part correct, in that if you have a 2 tables, and table2 has a foreign key to table one, it could be either a one-to-one or a many-to-one.
Your sentence "And in a one-to-many relationship the table contains many foreign keys."
The table of the 'many' side still contains one column that is a foreign key, its just that more than one row can have the same foreign key value (many rows point to one parent).
Also note that you can put the foreign key on the parent table, to the child, instead of the other way around. In this way, you can prevent one-to-many if you want to do that. Also note that in this way, more than one parent can share a child, which might or might not be what you want.
The database-level equivalent of a 1:1 vs. 1:m is having a unique index on the foreign key column. Note that this will only work for 1:1, NOT 1:0..1, as null is considered when evaluating uniqueness. There are workarounds for this restriction, but that's it at the basic level.
Similarly by example, a product has only one product code, so it's one-to-one relationship (product <-> ABC123), but a customer can purchase more than one product, so it's one-to-many relationship (person <->>>product).
well, you are right, this relation is important for you, but not for db itself. When you have two tables, one with your basic information, and another one with your detailed information.. for both tables you are you, so it is one-to-one relation, you can not map your data to somebody else.
Now add third table "cities" and one of your information points to city you live in - this is example of one-to-many (one city can be used, and should be used for many people).
one-to-many / one-to-one just show how your tables interact. And all the time, you want to "save" rows/columns in table not duplicating them you will use one-to-many relation with another table. Or many-to-many :)
Let's assume you have a table with two attributes A and B. If A is a candidate key and B is not then the relationship between A and B is 1 to many. If both A and B are candidate keys then the relationship is 1 to 1.
Given table A and B if
A and B have a strict 1 to 1 relationship
For every B instance, there will always be an A instance
The best approach is to make the primary key of B also a foreign key referencing A. This is also called "Table per Type Inheritance" and the "is a" relationship. There are other ways to enforce a unique foreign key, but using the primary key makes the relationship clear in the schema and in ER diagrams.
Of course there are always other scenarios, and if your design doesn't meet both of the criteria above, you'll have to use another approach.
I have a question, if two tables in database are from different entities then how we define relationship between them. i mean can we use some foreign key or any thing to define relationship between them. or we have to create a third table
It depends on what kind of relationship you have. If it´s a 1-1 or 1-N then you will only add foreign key column on the respective table. If you need a N-N (aka N-M) you will need a third table.
There is a design principle that states that a table either defines an entity or a relationship but not both. Therefore, use a third table to model the relationship between your two entities -- yes, even if it is 1-1 or 1-N -- noting that the relationship itself may have its own attributes.