I was wonder if it was possible to create a generated column by using a group by query. For example, in the diagram below, is it possible to have the quantity of a equipment be generated based on the number of asset that matches it's foreign key?
You can't do that with a computed column. If you wanted to store and maintain such information, you would need trigger code for every DML operation on table asset , which makes things rather complex.
You can, on the other hand, create a view:
create view v_equipment
select e.*,
(select count(*) from asset a where a.equipment_id = e.equipment_id) as quantity
from equipment e
This gives you an always up-to-date perspective at your data. You can query the view directly instead of the table whenever you need the quantity information.
Related
I am trying to insert a data from a table together with the data from the foreign key. For example, after the customer signing up. The data (that includes the id, name, contact) will be inserted in the Customers Table then the Customer ID will also be inserted in the QRCode Table since Customer ID is a foreign key. Now my problem is, how to include the "name" and the "contac"t in the QRCode table? Can anyone suggest what should I use?
This is too long for a comment.
In general, you don't. You just include the CustomerId in the two tables. When the time comes and you need the name or other information, you use a join:
select qr.*, c.* -- or whatever columns you want
from qr join
customers c
on qr.customerid = c.customerid;
In general, you want to avoid storing multiple copies of the same information in different tables -- it bloats the database and makes it hard to maintain.
Let me note that the above is a general rule. There are some cases where you might want to copy data in this situation (say, slowly changing dimensions), but as a general rule, data attributes should be stored in only one table, with joins used to combine data from different tables.
I'm new to that topic. I've got a database with a flat fact table, which contain data like date, product group, product subgroup, product actual name, and some calculations/statistics. All I need to do is create a report using olap cube. I have got two ideas how to create that, but dont know which draft is better (if even correct). The original DAILY_REPORT... table has not a primary key. Its just a data table. In first concept I have created every table (which will be as a dimension) with a ID, and connected the product->family of product->project->building in a hierarchy. Another concept is without all ID's and hierarchy. Relation created automatically based on names. Can somebody explain me in which direction I should tend...?
First idea:
http://imgur.com/iKNfAXF
Second:
http://imgur.com/IZjW1W6
Thanks in advance!
You can follow these steps to create your cube:
Create a separate view for each of the dimensions you want to have. Group similar type of data in one view, for e.g. Product Name, Product Group, Product Sub-Group, etc.
Keep the data in your dimension view as DISTINCT data. for e.g. SELECT DISTINCT [Product Name], [Product Group], [Product Sub-Group] FROM TABLE
Keep an 'ID' column in each dimension view, for e.g. Product ID in Product view
Create a view for your fact. Include 'ID' column of each dimension in your Fact view. This will help you to create relationship on 'ID' column, which will be a lot faster than relationship created on top of names.
For creating hierarchies in dimension attributes, SSAS provide drag and drop functionality.
If you need more details let me know.
You could construct the dimensions you need by views that based on distinct queries (i.e. SELECT DISTINCT) from the source data. These can be used to populate the dimensions.
You can make a synthetic date dimension fairly easily.
Then you can create a DSV that joins the views back against the fact table to populate the measure group.
If you need to fake a primary key then you can use a view that annotates the fact table with a column generated from row_number() or some similar means. Note that this is not necessarily stable across runs, so you can't rely on it for incremental loads. However, it would work fine for complete refreshes.
We have a data warehouse that contains a large fact table with over 100 million rows. I'm trying to create a cube that includes this fact table and need to create a fact dimension based off of this table. The issue that I'm running into is that there is no way to find uniqueness on this table using the fields that would be included in the fact dimension, without using every field in the table.
I created a surrogate key in the dsv using:
Row_Number() OVER (ORDER BY ID, Dt, Num)
I've used this method to create a surrogate key in another dsv and it worked, but I was also able to find uniqueness with the fields in the Order By.
When I browse the cube based on this fact table I get the correct results when using regular dimensions. When I try to use fields from fact dimension I get eroneous results in most cases...some are correct, though very few.
Would this be a case where I should request that a surrogate key get created on the fact table? Is there a better solution that someone could suggest?
When I create a view I can base it on multiple columns from different tables.
When I want to create a lookup table I need information from one table, for example the foreign key of an order table, to get customer details from another table. I can create a view having parameters to make sure it will get all data that I need. I could also - from what I have been reading - make a lookup table. What is the difference in this case and when should I choose for a lookup table?? I hope this ain't a bad question, I'm not very into db's yet ;).
Creating a view gives you a "live" representation of the data as it is at the time of querying. This comes at the cost of higher load on the server, because it has to determine the values for every query.
This can be expensive, depending on table sizes, database implementations and the complexity of the view definition.
A lookup table on the other hand is usually filled "manually", i. e. not every query against it will cause an expensive operation to fetch values from multiple tables. Instead your program has to take care of updating the lookup table should the underlying data change.
Usually lookup tables lend themselves to things that change seldomly, but are read often. Views on the other hand - while more expensive to execute - are more current.
I think your usage of "Lookup Table" is slightly awry. In normal parlance a lookup table is a code or reference data table. It might consist of a CODE and a DESCRIPTION or a code expansion. The purpose of such tables is to provide a lsit of permitted values for restricted columns, things like CUSTOMER_TYPE or PRIORITY_CODE. This category of table is often referred to as "standing data" because it changes very rarely if at all. The value of defining this data in Lookup tables is that they can be used in foreign keys and to populate Dropdowns and Lists Of Values.
What you are describing is a slightly different scenario:
I need information from one table, for
example the foreign key of an order
table, to get customer details from
another table
Both these tables are application data tables. Customer and Order records are dynamic. Now it is obviously valid to retrieve additional data from the Customer table to display along side the Order data, and in that sense Customer is a "lookup table". More pertinently it is the parent table of Order, because it has the primary key referenced by the foreign key on Order.
By all means build a view to capture the joining logic between Order and Customer. Such views can be quite helpful when building an application that uses the same joined tables in several places.
Here's an example of a lookup table. We have a system that tracks Jurors, one of the tables is JurorStatus. This table contains all the valid StatusCodes for Jurors:
Code: Value
WS : Will Serve
PP : Postponed
EM : Excuse Military
IF : Ineligible Felon
This is a lookup table for the valid codes.
A view is like a query.
Read this tutorial and you may find helpful info when a lookup table is needed:
SQL: Creating a Lookup Table
Just learn to write sql queries to get exactly what you need. No need to create a view! Views are not good to use in many instances, especially if you start to base them on other views, when they will kill performance. Do not use views just as a shorthand for query writing.
Is there any way to use inheritance in database (Specifically in SQL Server 2005)?
Suppose I have few field like CreatedOn, CreatedBy which I want to add on all of my entities. I looking for an alternative way instead of adding these fields to every table.
There is no such thing as inheritance between tables in SQL Server 2005, and as noted by the others, you can get as far as getting help adding the necessary columns to the tables when you create them, but it won't be inheritance as you know it.
Think of it more like a template for your source code files.
As GateKiller mentions, you can create a table containing the shared data and reference it with a foreign key, but you'll either have to have audit hooks, triggers, or do the update manually.
Bottom line: Manual work.
PostgreSQL has this feature. Just add this to the end of your table definition:
INHERITS FROM (tablename[, othertable...])
The child table will have all the columns of its parent, and changes to the parent table will change the child. Also, everything in the child table will come up in queries to the parent table (by default). Unfortunately indices don't cross the parent/child border, which also means you can't make sure that certain columns are unique across both the parent and child.
As far as I know, it's not a feature used very often.
You could create a template in the template pane in Management Studio. And then use that template every time you want to create a new table.
Failing that, you could store the CreatedOn and CreatedBy fields in an Audit trail table referencing the original table and id.
Failing that, do it manually.
You could use a data modeling tool such as ER/Studio or ERWin. Both tools have domain columns where you can define a column template that you can apply to any table. When the domain changes so do the associated columns. ER/Studio also has trigger templates that you can build and apply to any table. This is how we update our LastUpdatedBy and LastUpdatedDate columns without having to build and maintain hundreds of trigger scripts.
If you do create an audit table you would have one row for every row in every table that uses the audit table. That could get messy. In my opinion, you're better off putting the audit columns in every table. You also may want to put a timestamp column in all of your tables. You never know when concurrency becomes a problem. Our DB audit columns that we put in every table are: CreatedDt, LastUpdatedBy, LastUpdatedDt and Timestamp.
Hope this helps.
We have a SProc that adds audit columns to a given table, and (optionally) creates a history table and associated triggers to track changes to a value. Unfortunately, company policy means I can't share, but it really isn't difficult to achieve.
If you are using GUIDs you could create a CreateHistory table with columns GUID, CreatedOn, CreatedBy. For populating the table you would still have to create a trigger for every table or handle it in the application logic.
You do NOT want to use inheritance to do this! When table B, C and D inherits from table A, that means that querying table A will give you records from B, C and D. Now consider...
DELETE FROM a;
Instead of inheritance, use LIKE instead...
CREATE TABLE blah (
blah_id serial PRIMARY KEY
, something text NOT NULL
, LIKE template_table INCLUDING DEFALUTS
);
Ramesh - I would implement this using supertype and subtype relationships in my E-R model. There are a few different physical options you have of implementing the relationships as well.
in O-R mapping, inheritance maps to a parent table where the parent and child tables use the same identifier
for example
create table Object (
Id int NOT NULL --primary key, auto-increment
Name varchar(32)
)
create table SubObject (
Id int NOT NULL --primary key and also foreign key to Object
Description varchar(32)
)
SubObject has a foreign-key relationship to Object. when you create a SubObject row, you must first create an Object row and use the Id in both rows