Database column naming for foreign key - database

should I signal the foreign key in a database column name?
FKOrder vs. FK_Order vs. Order


The short answer is no - don't put "FK" in column names of foreign key columns. You can still signal the intent of the column though, here's how I do it:
Naming foreign key columns
It depends on your naming convention for the target of the FK. If you have Id, then I'd prepend the table name when creating FK columns.
Example 1:
For table User with PK Id and table Workitem with user ID FK, I'd call the column Workitem.UserId.
If there were more than one FK between the same tables, I'd make this clear in the column name:
Example 2:
For table User with PK Id and table Workitem with "assigned to user ID" and "created by user ID" FKs, I'd call the columns Workitem.CreatedByUserId and Workitem.AssignedToUserId.
If your naming convention for PKs is more like UserId, then you'd factor that into the above examples so as not to end up with UserUserId.
Naming foreign key constraints
This is mine:
FK_childtablename_[differentiator]parenttablename
The differentiator is used when there is more than one FK between the same two tables (e.g. CreatedByUserId and AssignedToUserId). Often I use the child table's column name for this.
Example 1:
Given tables: Workitem and User
Where User has CreatedByUserId and AssignedToUserId
Foreign key names are FK_Workitem_User_CreatedByUser and FK_Workitem_AssignedToUser
I use double-underscores if tables/columns have underscores in the name:
Example 2:
Given tables: work_item and user
Where user has created_by_user_id and assigned_to_user_id
Foreign key names are FK_work_item__created_by_user and FK_work_item__assigned_to_user


Is usual to name the foreign key fields with an ID (IDORDER, IDPERSON, ...), if you have a table called PERSONS and another CITIES, if one person is in certain city, CITIES has an IDCITY field (K), PERSONS has a IDPERSON (K), and other field IDCITY (FK).
Hope this answers your question. I mean, a foreign key is only foreign when it's in other table, but not in theirs. But it's a good practice to name always the same to the same fields, even if they are in other tables, as a foreign key.


You shouldn't.
If a column becomes a foreign key later, you will have to change the column name, breaking all the scripts that are using it.
If there are multiple foreign keys, you don't know which column belongs to which key, so the only information you gain is that the column is a foreign key, but you already know it by looking at the keys.
Usually I name the foreign key column the same as the primary key, so I know immediately where the key maps.


I normally use the same name as the referenced column in the table holding the FK.
Only if this is potentially confusing (or a column with this name already exists, say id), would I be more explicit. In such a case, adding the entity type name before the rest - say ProductId.


My style is slightly different:
fk_table_column
eg: fk_user_id that is foreign key to User table on id column. I do not use any capital latter.

Related

One-to-many relationship: composite primary key or single primary key?

I have a table person containing personal info, and I have another table person_contact to store contact information about that person (type shows if it's a phone record or email record, and record contains the actual phone number or email address).
I have designed the schema like this:
In person_contact I have declared pcont_id and person_id as PK while person_id is a FK referencing person.person_id. Do I need the PK pcont_id at all? When should I use a single PK in a one-to-many relationship and when is it better to use composite PK?

You don't need person_id as a part of your primary key in person_contact table. pcont_id should be the primary key if you have a one to many relationship between the two tables.
Do I need the PK pcont_id at all?
I suggest, it should be there and should be primary key of your table assuming you can have multiple contacts for one person.
If one person can have only one contact, in that case you don't need that table itself, you can store the data directly in the person table.
If you still want to store it separately then you don't need pcont_id column, your person_id column should be marked as primary key.
When should I use a single PK in a one-to-many relationship and when
is it better to use composite PK?
Composite primary key is used when you have a junction table/associative table to map a many-to-many relationship. In case of one-to-many relationship you don't need composite primary key with the foreign key column.

Foreign key for multiple columns of one table referenced to the same primary key?

I am currently creating a database using SQL but I have found the need to use a foreign key to in 3 different fields in a single table.
I have CourseID1, CourseID2 and CourseID3 in students courses table. Each of those 3 fields need to be foreign and reference to the CourseID field in the course table which is a primary key.
Is this possible? how do I go about doing this?
Thank you

This is possible. You would do:
foreign key (CourseId1) references Courses(CourseId),
foreign key (CourseId2) references Courses(CourseId),
foreign key (CourseId3) references Courses(CourseId),
That said, you don't want to do this. Having multiple columns with numeric appendages usually means that you want an association/junction table. In this case, you want a table named something like StudentCourses which would have one row per student and per course that the student takes.

Is it fine to have foreign key as primary key?

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.

Question on different ways to link tables

What is the difference between linking two tables and then the PK is an FK in the other table, but the FK has not got the primary key option (so it does not have the gold key),
and having the PK in one table as a PK in another table?
Am I right to think that the second option is for a many-to-many relationship?
Thanks

FK means that any value in our table should be present in the foreign table.
Since the column in the foreign table should be declared as a PK or a UNIQUE key, this means it can be present only once in the foreign table.
PK means that any value in our table should be present only once.
Combined together, they mean that any value should be present only once both in our table and in foreign table.
This is a (0-1):1 relationship.

Renaming DB column in referencing table (violation?)

Say I have this table:
Person table
--------------
PersonId
Address table
------------
AddressId
PersonAddressId
where PersonAddressId is PersonId and the foreign key. Is there any type of database violation in renaming the foreign key? It can become very confusing to work with when they have different names.

It's generally helpful to name the foreign key column the same as the primary key column it references, where possible.
Of course, sometimes it's not possible:
Two columns in Address might both be foreign keys to Person, so obviously you can't name both columns PersonId.
Some tables contain a foreign key to itself, e.g. Employee.manager_id could be a reference to Employee.employee_id. Again, you can't name the column the same as the referenced primary key in this scenario.
There are no strict naming conventions in SQL. One source for suggested metadata naming conventions is ISO 11179.

Agreed and that's why the convention is to name PersonAddressId as PersonId.

Resources