I have two Postgres tables with the following columns:
Command
Column
Type
id
Integer Primary Key
name
VARCHAR(32)
Option
Column
Type
id
Integer Primary Key
name
VARCHAR(32)
command_id
FOREIGN KEY on COMMAND("id")
I want to add another constraint where the Command name column and the Option command_id columns are tied, such that two commands can share the same name provided they are part of different options. How would I make such a constraint? Would it be better to add no constraint but only allow the backend to make the required checks before entering data?
Edit: I realized that I was overthinking it for my simple use case and that storing a JSON field would be fine enough. However, if the table structure happened to be more complex, then the question would still be valid.
if the name from Command table is the same as name column in Option column. then that column in Option table is redundant and you can always fetch the name by FK that you already have (command_id).
but normally you can use composite key for your FK, for example :
create table Options(
id int primary key
, name varchar(32)
, command_id int
, foreign key fk_name (name , command_id) references Command(name, id)
);
and of course name and id in command table should be part of candidate key.
Related
I'm trying to create a procedure that inserts data into a table of registers but i don't want to repeat the second parameter, this is the table
CREATE TABLE Inscription
(
idClass INT references tb_class,
idStudent INT references tb_student,
)
The idea is that a student (idStudent) can register in various classes but not in the same class (idClass), I tried to add a unique constraint in the idStudent column but that only allows a student to register in one single class.
I always suggest that all tables have a numeric primary key. In addition, your foreign key references are not correct. And what you want to do is add a unique constraint.
The exact syntax depends on the database. The following is for SQL Server:
CREATE TABLE Inscriptions (
idInscription int identity(1, 1) primary key
idClass int references tb_classes(idClass),
idStudent int references tb_students(idStudnt)
unique (idClass, idStudent)
);
Notice that I name the tables as the plural of the entity, but the id using the singular.
The Inscriptions table probably wants other columns as well, such as the date/time of the inscription, the method, and other related information.
You are looking to create a constraint on your table that includes both columns idClass and idStudent.
Once that constraint is created, an attempt to insert duplicate class/student will result in an error being raised.
As your table does not seem to include a primary key, you would better make that constraint your primary key.
NB : you did not tell which RDBMS you are using hence cannot give you the exact syntax to use...
Your unique key needs to encompass both idClass and idStudent, so any particular combination cannot repeat itself.
I want to create a database that supports "friendships".
I've come up with (but don't know exactly if it works):
users:
"create table if not exists user (
name text not null,
password text not null
)"
friendships:
"create table if not exists friendship (
user1 int not null,
user2 int not null,
foreign key(user1) references user(rowid),
foreign key(user2) references user(rowid)
)"
Will this work?
The documentation says:
The parent key is the column or set of columns in the parent table that the foreign key constraint refers to. This is normally, but not always, the primary key of the parent table. The parent key must be a named column or columns in the parent table, not the rowid.
Please note that hidden rowid values are not guaranteed to keep their values (e.g., after a VACUUM), so in any case, it would be a good idea to make the parent key an explicitly named column.
I have a table with 2 primary key columns : ID and StudentID.
ID column is set to isIdentity = Yes with auto increment.
I've tested it multiple times before, but for some reason this time, when I insert a duplicate value on StudentID, it does not throw the error but instead added it on to the database. 2 of the same values are displayed when I show the table data.
What can be the problem here?
You have a compound primary key on ID and StudentID. That means you the combination of ID and StudentID together must be unique. Since ID is an identity column that combination of ID and StudentID will always be unique (because ID is already unique on its own).
You can change the primary key to be on ID only. Then you can add a unique index on StudentID. For example:
create unique index idx_studentID on yourTable(StudentID)
That will insure that the StudentID column, in fact, contains only unique values.
It seems like you may not actually need ID column, but that's a little wider discussion than your original question.
You can't have 2 "primary keys". You can have a compound primary key (meaning the combination needs to be unique, which is what it sounds like you have now. Or, You can have one "primary" key and one "unique" constraint which is what it sounds like you want.
You cannot have 2 Primary Keys. You can have multiple Unique Keys if needed, which should help you in your case. Make sure to go back to your table creation and double check which column is your Primary Key and work from there.
Do not mix up identity, primary key and unique key.
Any table can have identity key which you can setup on table. Here seed can be say 1, then increment it by 1. So incremental order will like 1,2,3...and so on.
Primary key, one can define on specific column of the table. Identity key can be used as primary key. But you can have identity column as well primary key on same table. Primary key is one and only for the table.So if you are treating identity as primary key, then you will have no further table column as primary key.
Unique key, can be more than one column with your table.
While fetching rows from table data, if you provide combination of identity key, primary key and unique key then search will be fastest
During my first response, I have mentioned that one can generate identity column by soft coding and it will not be treated as primary key.Following is syntax one can use while creating table.
1] If one wish to set identity column as primary key
--id int identity(1,1) primary key
2] If one doesn't wish to set identity column as primary key and still wish
to us identity column then donot us word primary key for identity column.
--id int identity(1,1)
In this 2] case scenario, one may create primary key on other table column.
I have these relationships:
User(uid:integer,uname:varchar), key is uid
Recipe(rid:integer,content:text), key is rid
Rating(rid:integer, uid:integer, rating:integer) , key is (uid,rid).
I built the table in the following way:
CREATE TABLE User(
uid INTEGER PRIMARY KEY ,
uname VARCHAR NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE Recipes(
rid INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
content VARCHAR NOT NULL
);
Now for the Rating table: I want it to be impossible to insert a uid\rid that does not exist in User\Recipe.
My question is: which of the following is the correct way to do it? Or please suggest the correct way if none of them are correct. Moreover, I would really appreciate if someone could explain to me what is the difference between the two.
First:
CREATE TABLE Rating(
rid INTEGER,
uid INTEGER,
rating INTEGER CHECK (0<=rating and rating<=5) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY(rid,uid),
FOREIGN KEY (rid) REFERENCES Recipes,
FOREIGN KEY (uid) REFERENCES User
);
Second:
CREATE TABLE Rating(
rid INTEGER REFERENCES Recipes,
uid INTEGER REFERENCES User,
rating INTEGER CHECK (0<=rating and rating<=5) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY(rid,uid)
);
EDIT:
I think User is problematic as a name for a table so ignore the name.
Technically both versions are the same in Postgres. The docs for CREATE TABLE say so quite clearly:
There are two ways to define constraints: table constraints and column constraints. A column constraint is defined as part of a column definition. A table constraint definition is not tied to a particular column, and it can encompass more than one column. Every column constraint can also be written as a table constraint; a column constraint is only a notational convenience for use when the constraint only affects one column.
So when you have to reference a compound key a table constraint is the only way to go.
But for every other case I prefer the shortest and most concise form where I don't need to give names to stuff I'm not really interested in. So my version would be like this:
CREATE TABLE usr(
uid SERIAL PRIMARY KEY ,
uname TEXT NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE recipes(
rid SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
content TEXT NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE rating(
rid INTEGER REFERENCES recipes,
uid INTEGER REFERENCES usr,
rating INTEGER NOT NULL CHECK (rating between 0 and 5),
PRIMARY KEY(rid,uid)
);
This is a SQL Server based solution, but the concept applies to most any RDBMS.
Like so:
CREATE TABLE Rating (
rid int NOT NULL,
uid int NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT PK_Rating PRIMARY KEY (rid, uid)
);
ALTER TABLE Rating ADD CONSTRAINT FK_Rating_Recipies FOREIGN KEY(rid)
REFERENCES Recipies (rid);
ALTER TABLE Rating ADD CONSTRAINT FK_Rating_User FOREIGN KEY(uid)
REFERENCES User (uid);
This ensures that the values inside of Rating are only valid values inside of both the Users table and the Recipes table. Please note, in the Rating table I didn't include the other fields you had, just add those.
Assume in the users table you have 3 users: Joe, Bob and Bill respective ID's 1,2,3. And in the recipes table you had cookies, chicken pot pie, and pumpkin pie respective ID's are 1,2,3. Then inserting into Rating table will only allow for these values, the minute you enter 4 for a RID or a UID SQL throws an error and does not commit the transaction.
Try it yourself, its a good learning experience.
In Postgresql a correct way to implement these tables are:
CREATE SEQUENCE uid_seq;
CREATE SEQUENCE rid_seq;
CREATE TABLE User(
uid INTEGER PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT nextval('uid_seq'),
uname VARCHAR NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE Recipes(
rid INTEGER PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT nextval('rid_seq'),
content VARCHAR NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE Rating(
rid INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES Recipes(rid),
uid INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES User(uid),
rating INTEGER CHECK (0<=rating and rating<=5) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY(rid,uid)
);
There is no real difference between the two options that you have written.
A simple (i.e. single-column) foreign key may be declared in-line with the column declaration or not. It's merely a question of style. A third way should be to omit foreign key declarations from the CREATE TABLE entirely and later add them using ALTER TABLE statements; done in a transaction (presumable along with all the other tables, constraints, etc) the table would never exist without its required constraints. Choose whichever you think is easiest fora human coder to read and understand i.e. is easiest to maintain.
EDIT: I overlooked the REFERENCES clause in the second version when I wrote my original answer. The two versions are identical in terms of referential integrity, there are just two ways of syntax to do this.
Hoping someone can shed some light on this: Do lookup tables need their own ID?
For example, say I have:
Table users: user_id, username
Table categories: category_id, category_name
Table users_categories: user_id, category_id
Would each row in "users_categories" need an additional ID field? What would the primary key of said table be? Thanks.
You have a choice. The primary key can be either:
A new, otherwise meaningless INTEGER column.
A key made up of both user_id and category_id.
I prefer the first solution but I think you'll find a majority of programmers here prefer the second.
You could create a composite key that uses the both keys
Normally if there is no suitable key to be found in a table you want to create a either a composite key, made up of 2 or more fields,
ex:
Code below found here
CREATE TABLE topic_replies (
topic_id int unsigned not null,
id int unsigned not null auto_increment,
user_id int unsigned not null,
message text not null,
PRIMARY KEY(topic_id, id));
therefor in your case you could add code that does the following:
ALTER TABLE users_categories ADD PRIMARY KEY (user_id, category_id);
therefor once you want to reference a certain field all you would need is to pass the two PKs from your other table, however to link them they need to each be coded as a foreign key.
ALTER TABLE users_categories ADD CONSTRAINT fk_1 FOREIGN KEY (category_id) REFERENCES categories (category_id);
but if you want to create a new primary key in your users_categories table that is an option. Just know that its not always neccessary.
If your users_categories table has a unique primary key over (user_id, category_id), then - no, not necessarily.
Only if you
want to refer to single rows of that table from someplace else easily
have more than one equal user_id, category_id combination
you could benefit from a separate ID field.
Every table needs a primary key and unique ID in SQL no matter what. Just make it users_categories_id, you technically never have to use it but it has to be there.