I've been working with Entity framework in C# trying to figure out how to join two tables together. I found a reference here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj715646.aspx on how to do this. Problem is, the two tables have PKs that are not in sync which seems to be a requirement. I've never had to worry about syncing PKs from two tables in a database before. I know I can turn off identity insert on one table but I see comments from numerous people that this is a very bad idea. If I'm not supposed to do this, then how do I accomplish syncing the PKs in each of the tables?
I have two tables in a database:
User
pkID (int)
FirstName (varchar)
LastName (varchar)
Email (varchar)
...
LockedFlags (locking fields in user from being edited)
pkID
fkUserID
bFirstName (bool)
bLastName (bool)
bEmail (bool)
I'm curious on why people thing that removing the identity insert on a table is a bad idea... if I'm relying on MSSQL to assign a PK then I could see an instance when I'm inserting a record into the database where the second table write could get a different value when dealing with multiple writes...
It sounds like you have orphaned rows in the LockedFlags table, like a row with a user ID that points to a user that has been deleted. Depending on how the relationship is setup it can also be true for the reverse.
If you have a entity where the 2 tables are combined into a single class, loading the entity set will query both tables and require matching pairs of rows.
Your LockedFlags probably has a User property which it is trying to load and cannot find in the user table.
Table options:
Note: I'm using MSSQL equivalent as I don't know MYSQL.
Comments regarding your data model:
I don't know how MYWSQL handles record locking but if it is anything like MSSQL, you do not have to worry about manually handling.
I would strongly suggest re-looking at your data model if you're going to use it as is. Just using a single table would be best if you really want to manually lock individual row fields?
Edit:
ALTER TABLE LockFlags ADD CONSTRAINT
FK_LockFlags_User FOREIGN KEY
(
UserID
) REFERENCES User
(
pkID
) ON UPDATE NO ACTION
ON DELETE NO ACTION
GO
Related
Model: merchants have one to many customers and customers have one to many accounts. Accounts have names. All three tables have unique IDs for each row.
Constraint: For a given merchant, the account names must be unique.
How do we enforce this constraint in a SQL Server database schema?
Here'some ideas we've considered:
We could add MerchantId to the Account table and create a unique constraint, but it's a redundant column to maintain given that CustomerId is already there. We'd need to make sure the combination of MerchantId and CustomerId are themselves consistent, so we'd make the foreign key between Account and Customer include both columns, even though CustomerId is already a unique identifier.
We could add a check constraint to the Account table and use a UDF to check the constraint rule. But then a Customer could conceivable be assigned to a different Merchant, and the check constraint on Account wouldn't be checked. So we'd have to add another constraint on the Customer table, which starts to seem like we're doing it wrong, especially as the real model gets more complex than described here.
We could enforce the constraint via triggers, but this doesn't seem to improve upon the shortcomings with using check constraints.
Maybe the best idea of a solution is to create a view joining the 3 tables and create a unique index on that view. That would be an indexed view. When you index a view it gets persisted just like a regular table, but it's updated automagically by the database engine as part of regular DML commands.
There are lots of requirements and restrictions on what you can and cannot do, those are in the docs I linked to above, but I think you can get away with it.
The code would go like this:
CREATE VIEW dbo.MerchantAccounts
WITH SCHEMABINDING
AS
SELECT m.MerchantKey, a.AccountKey, a.Name
FROM dbo.Accounts a
INNER JOIN dbo.Customers c
ON a.CustomerKey = c.CustomerKey
INNER JOIN dbo.Merchants m
ON c.MerchantKey = m.MerchantKey;
GO
CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX IX_MerchantKey_AccountName
ON dbo.MerchantAccounts (MerchantKey, Name);
GO
I included 3 columns in the view but only 2 are part of the unique clustered index. So you must not have duplicated MarchantKey,AccountName to begin with, and after that the database engine will ensure that for you.
You don't need to change your table and your relationships as long as you don't violate the requirements.
You can include more columns than just the key columns in your indexes view, and that can help performance for some queries. That's up to you. Just be aware that the resultset of the view (the equivalent of SELECT * FROM dbo.MerchantAccounts) will be persisted on your database and will take up space. So the more columns you add the bigger the view gets and the more expensive it gets to maintain it up to date.
I have an entity framework application. There is a table that is starting to cause a lot of problems, mostly because it doesn't follow EF conventions:
The two important columns are RequestType and RequestDetailId. Each type of request has its own identity column. Since those identities can overlap across tables, there is a RequestType field to uniquely associate an approval to a request.
I am planning on replacing this "One True Lookup Table" with an Approval table and a separate many-to-many table for each request table, linking the request to the approval:
I have a couple of requests already pointing to this new approval table and I like how it is working within EF. However, I am having a hard time migrating from the old table to the new tables. So far, I have been looping through the old data with a cursor, inserting into the new Approval table and using the identity (SELECT SCOPE_IDENTITY()) to insert into the many-to-many table. I need a cursor because I need to keep track of the approval identity value for each new approval record, so I can populate the many-to-many table with it.
I was curious if someone knew a way to do the two inserts without requiring a cursor. Cursors are fine, but they are hard to read.
One thought was to temporarily add a Request ID field to the Approval table, inserting the approval with the request ID, then joining that information to the old table to populate the many-to-many table. After the two inserts, I would drop the request ID column. I don't like the idea of adding a nullable request ID column to an existing table just to do a migration.
I was curious if someone could think of a way to split the old lookup table into the new approval/many-to-many tables without using a cursor.
I've read a lot of tips and tutorials about normalization but I still find it hard to understand how and when we need normalization. So right now I need to know if this database design for an electricity monitoring system needs to be normalized or not.
So far I have one table with fields:
monitor_id
appliance_name
brand
ampere
uptime
power_kWh
price_kWh
status (ON/OFF)
This monitoring system monitors multiple appliances (TV, Fridge, washing machine) separately.
So does it need to be normalized further? If so, how?
Honestly, you can get away without normalizing every database. Normalization is good if the database is going to be a project that affects many people or if there are performance issues and the database does OLTP. Database normalization in many ways boils down to having larger numbers of tables themselves with fewer columns. Denormalization involves having fewer tables with larger numbers of columns.
I've never seen a real database with only one table, but that's ok. Some people denormalize their database for reporting purposes. So it isn't always necessary to normalize a database.
How do you normalize it? You need to have a primary key (on a column that is unique or a combination of two or more columns that are unique in their combined form). You would need to create another table and have a foreign key relationship. A foreign key relationship is a pair of columns that exist in two or more tables. These columns need to share the same data type. These act as a map from one table to another. The tables are usually separated by real-world purpose.
For example, you could have a table with status, uptime and monitor_id. This would have a foreign key relationship to the monitor_id between the two tables. Your original table could then drop the uptime and status columns. You could have a third table with Brands, Models and the things that all models have in common (e.g., power_kWh, ampere, etc.). There could be a foreign key relationship to the first table based on model. Then the brand column could be eliminated (via the DDL command DROP) from the first table as this third table will have it relating from the model name.
To create new tables, you'll need to invoke a DDL command CREATE TABLE newTable with a foreign key on the column that will in effect be shared by the new table and the original table. With foreign key constraints, the new tables will share a column. The tables will have less information in them (fewer columns) when they are highly normalized. But there will be more tables to accommodate and store all the data. This way you can update one table and not put a lock on all the other columns in a denormalized database with one big table.
Once new tables have the data in the column or columns from the original table, you can drop those columns from the original table (except for the foreign key column). To drop columns, you need to invoke DDL commands (ALTER TABLE originalTable, drop brand).
In many ways, performance will be improved if you try to do many reads and writes (commit many transactions) on a database table in a normalized database. If you use the table as a report, and want to present all the data as it is in the table normally, normalized the database will hurt the peformance.
By the way, normalizing the database can prevent redundant data. This can make the database consume less storage space and use less memory.
It is nice to have our database normalize.It helps us to have a efficient data because we can prevent redundancy here and also saves memory usages. On normalizing tables we need to have a primary key in each table and use this to connect to another table and when the primary key (unique in each table) is on another table it is called the foreign key (use to connect to another table).
Sample you already have this table :
Table name : appliances_tbl
-inside here you have
-appliance_id : as the primary key
-appliance_name
-brand
-model
and so on about this appliances...
Next you have another table :
Table name : appliance_info_tbl (anything for a table name and must be related to its fields)
-appliance_info_id : primary key
-appliance_price
-appliance_uptime
-appliance_description
-appliance_id : foreign key (so you can get the name of the appliance by using only its id)
and so on....
You can add more table like that but just make sure that you have a primary key in each table. You can also put the cardinality to make your normalizing more understandable.
I have a problem that can be summarized as follow:
Assume that I am implementing an employee database. For each person depends on his position, different fields should be filled. So for example if the employee is a software engineer, I have the following columns:
Name
Family
Language
Technology
CanDevelopWeb
And if the employee is a business manager I have the following columns:
Name
Family
FieldOfExpertise
MaximumContractValue
BonusRate
And if the employee is a salesperson then some other columns and so on.
How can I implement this in database schema?
One way that I thought is to have some related tables:
CoreTable:
Name
Family
Type
And if type is one then the employee is a software developer and hence the remaining information should be in table SoftwareDeveloper:
Language
Technology
CanDevelopWeb
For business Managers I have another table with columns:
FieldOfExpertise
MaximumContractValue
BonusRate
The problem with this structure is that I am not sure how to make relationship between tables, as one table has relationship with several tables on one column.
How to enforce relational integrity?
There are a few schools of thought here.
(1) store nullable columns in a single table and only populate the relevant ones (check constraints can enforce integrity here). Some people don't like this because they are afraid of NULLs.
(2) your multi-table design where each type gets its own table. Tougher to enforce with DRI but probably trivial with application or trigger logic.
The only problem with either of those, is as soon as you add a new property (like CanReadUpsideDown), you have to make schema changes to accommodate for that - in (1) you need to add a new column and a new constraint, in (2) you need to add a new table if that represents a new "type" of employee.
(3) EAV, where you have a single table that stores property name and value pairs. You have less control over data integrity here, but you can certainly constraint the property names to certain strings. I wrote about this here:
What is so bad about EAV, anyway?
You are describing one ("class per table") of the 3 possible strategies for implementing the category (aka. inheritance, generalization, subclass) hierarchy.
The correct "propagation" of PK from the parent to child tables is naturally enforced by straightforward foreign keys between them, but ensuring both presence and the exclusivity of the child rows is another matter. It can be done (as noted in the link above), but the added complexity is probably not worth it and I'd generally recommend handling it at the application level.
I would add a field called EmployeeId in the EmployeeTable
I'd get rid of Type
For BusinessManager table and SoftwareDeveloper for example, I'll add EmployeeId
From here, you can then proceed to create Foreign Keys from BusinessManager, SoftwareDeveloper table to Employee
To further expand on your one way with the core table is to create a surrogate key based off an identity column. This will create a unique employee id for each employee (this will help you distinguish between employees with the same name as well).
The foreign keys preserve your referential integrity. You wouldn't necessarily need EmployeeTypeId as someone else mentioned as you could filter on existence in the SoftwareDeveloper or BusinessManagers tables. The column would instead act as a cached data point for easier querying.
You have to fill in the types in the below sample code and rename the foreign keys.
create table EmployeeType(
EmployeeTypeId
, EmployeeTypeName
, constraint PK_EmployeeType primary key (EmployeeTypeId)
)
create table Employees(
EmployeeId int identity(1,1)
, Name
, Family
, EmployeeTypeId
, constraint PK_Employees primary key (EmployeeId)
, constraint FK_blahblah foreign key (EmployeeTypeId) references EmployeeType(EmployeeTypeId)
)
create table SoftwareDeveloper(
EmployeeId
, Language
, Technology
, CanDevelopWeb
, constraint FK_blahblah foreign key (EmployeeId) references Employees(EmployeeId)
)
create table BusinessManagers(
EmployeeId
, FieldOfExpertise
, MaximumContractValue
, BonusRate
, constraint FK_blahblah foreign key (EmployeeId) references Employees(EmployeeId)
)
No existing SQL engine has solutions that make life easy on you in this situation.
Your problem is discussed at fairly large in "Practical Issues in Database Management", in the chapter on "entity subtyping". Commendable reading, not only for this particular chapter.
The proper solution, from a logical design perspective, would be similar to yours, but for the "type" column in the core table. You don't need that, since you can derive the 'type' from which non-core table the employee appears in.
What you need to look at is the business rules, aka data constraints, that will ensure the overall integrity (aka consistency) of the data (of course whether any of these actually apply is something your business users, not me, should tell you) :
Each named employee must have exactly one job, and thus some job detail somewhere. iow : (1) no named employees without any job detail whatsoever and (2) no named employees with >1 job detail.
(3) All job details must be for a named employee.
Of these, (3) is the only one you can implement declaratively if you are using an SQL engine. It's just a regular FK from the non-core tables to the core table.
(1) and (2) could be defined declaratively in standard SQL, using either CREATE ASSERTION or a CHECK CONSTRAINT involving references to other tables than the one the CHECK CONSTRAINT is defined on, but neither of those constructs are supported by any SQL engine I know.
One more thing about why [including] the 'type' column is a rather poor choice to make : it changes how constraint (3) must be formulated. For example, you can no longer say "all business managers must be named employees", but instead you'd have to say "all business managers are named employees whose type is <type here>". Iow, the "regular FK" to your core table has now become a reference to a VIEW on your core table, something you might want to declare as, say,
CREATE TABLE BUSMANS ... REFERENCES (SELECT ... FROM CORE WHERE TYPE='BM');
or
CREATE VIEW BM AS (SELECT ... FROM CORE WHERE TYPE='BM');
CREATE TABLE BUSMANS ... REFERENCES BM;
Once again something SQL doesn't allow you to do.
You can use all fields in the same table, but you'll need an extra table named Employee_Type (for example) and here you have to put Developer, Business Manager, ... of course with an unique ID. So your relation will be employee_type_id in Employee table.
Using PHP or ASP you can control what field you want to show depending the employee_type_id (or text) in a drop-down menu.
You are on the right track. You can set up PK/FK relationships from the general person table to each of the specialized tables. You should add a personID to all the tables to use for the relationship as you do not want to set up a relationship on name because it cannot be a PK as it is not unique. Also names change, they are a very poor choice for an FK relationship as a name change could cause many records to need to change. It is important to use separate tables rather than one because some of those things are in a one to many relationship. A Developer for instnce may have many differnt technologies and that sort of thing should NEVER be stored in a comma delimted list.
You could also set up trigger to enforce that records can only be added to a specialty table if the main record has a particular personType. However, be wary of doing this as you wil have peopl who change roles over time. Do you want to lose the history of wha the person knew when he was a developer when he gets promoted to a manager. Then if he decides to step back down to development (A frequent occurance) you would have to recreate his old record.
I've got a table structure I'm not really certain of how to create the best way.
Basically I have two tables, tblSystemItems and tblClientItems. I have a third table that has a column that references an 'Item'. The problem is, this column needs to reference either a system item or a client item - it does not matter which. System items have keys in the 1..2^31 range while client items have keys in the range -1..-2^31, thus there will never be any collisions.
Whenever I query the items, I'm doing it through a view that does a UNION ALL between the contents of the two tables.
Thus, optimally, I'd like to make a foreign key reference the result of the view, since the view will always be the union of the two tables - while still keeping IDs unique. But I can't do this as I can't reference a view.
Now, I can just drop the foreign key, and all is well. However, I'd really like to have some referential checking and cascading delete/set null functionality. Is there any way to do this, besides triggers?
sorry for the late answer, I've been struck with a serious case of weekenditis.
As for utilizing a third table to include PKs from both client and system tables - I don't like that as that just overly complicates synchronization and still requires my app to know of the third table.
Another issue that has arisen is that I have a third table that needs to reference an item - either system or client, it doesn't matter. Having the tables separated basically means I need to have two columns, a ClientItemID and a SystemItemID, each having a constraint for each of their tables with nullability - rather ugly.
I ended up choosing a different solution. The whole issue was with easily synchronizing new system items into the tables without messing with client items, avoiding collisions and so forth.
I ended up creating just a single table, Items. Items has a bit column named "SystemItem" that defines, well, the obvious. In my development / system database, I've got the PK as an int identity(1,1). After the table has been created in the client database, the identity key is changed to (-1,-1). That means client items go in the negative while system items go in the positive.
For synchronizations I basically ignore anything with (SystemItem = 1) while synchronizing the rest using IDENTITY INSERT ON. Thus I'm able to synchronize while completely ignoring client items and avoiding collisions. I'm also able to reference just one "Items" table which covers both client and system items. The only thing to keep in mind is to fix the standard clustered key so it's descending to avoid all kinds of page restructuring when the client inserts new items (client updates vs system updates is like 99%/1%).
You can create a unique id (db generated - sequence, autoinc, etc) for the table that references items, and create two additional columns (tblSystemItemsFK and tblClientItemsFk) where you reference the system items and client items respectively - some databases allows you to have a foreign key that is nullable.
If you're using an ORM you can even easily distinguish client items and system items (this way you don't need to negative identifiers to prevent ID overlap) based on column information only.
With a little more bakcground/context it is probably easier to determine an optimal solution.
You probably need a table say tblItems that simply store all the primary keys of the two tables. Inserting items would require two steps to ensure that when an item is entered into the tblSystemItems table that the PK is entered into the tblItems table.
The third table then has a FK to tblItems. In a way tblItems is a parent of the other two items tables. To query for an Item it would be necessary to create a JOIN between tblItems, tblSystemItems and tblClientItems.
[EDIT-for comment below] If the tblSystemItems and tblClientItems control their own PK then you can still let them. You would probably insert into tblSystemItems first then insert into tblItems. When you implement an inheritance structure using a tool like Hibernate you end up with something like this.
Add a table called Items with a PK ItemiD, And a single column called ItemType = "System" or "Client" then have ClientItems table PK (named ClientItemId) and SystemItems PK (named SystemItemId) both also be FKs to Items.ItemId, (These relationships are zero to one relationships (0-1)
Then in your third table that references an item, just have it's FK constraint reference the itemId in this extra (Items) table...
If you are using stored procedures to implement inserts, just have the stored proc that inserts items insert a new record into the Items table first, and then, using the auto-generated PK value in that table insert the actual data record into either SystemItems or ClientItems (depending on which it is) as part of the same stored proc call, using the auto-generated (identity) value that the system inserted into the Items table ItemId column.
This is called "SubClassing"
I've been puzzling over your table design. I'm not certain that it is right. I realise that the third table may just be providing detail information, but I can't help thinking that the primary key is actually the one in your ITEM table and the FOREIGN keys are the ones in your system and client item tables. You'd then just need to do right outer joins from Item to the system and client item tables, and all constraints would work fine.
I have a similar situation in a database I'm using. I have a "candidate key" on each table that I call EntityID. Then, if there's a table that needs to refer to items in more than one of the other tables, I use EntityID to refer to that row. I do have an Entity table to cross reference everything (so that EntityID is the primary key of the Entity table, and all other EntityID's are FKs), but I don't find myself using the Entity table very often.