oracle
In schema A I created a table called "apples" with data.
In Schema B I created a copy of table "apples" from schema 1 using
create table apples as select * from schemaA.apples
My question is, now that I have schema B up and running. Can I drop/delete my schemaA.apples? There is no direct link between the tables correct?
Or if I drop schemaA.apples will schemaB.apples get runied?
There is no direct link between the tables correct?
Correct. You have two different tables, that are not related. You just copied data from one table to another at a given point in time.
Or if I drop schemaA.apples will schemaB.apples get runied?
No, there is no risk that it will impact the other table. Again, data was copied, and tables are independent.
Side note: the create table ... as select ... syntax (aka CTAS) just copies the data and the structure, but not the related objects like primary keys, constraints, indexes, sequences. You might want to check these objects, and recreate them too to the new schema.
Related
Can I create a mapping table out of a #temp table that I have created?
I need to create a mapping table that contains two different tables, but those tables do not have any field in common. However, I created a temp table with case statements and joining the table.
Now, I need to create a mapping table but I'm not sure if I can't create a mapping table out of a temp table.
What should I do?
You may want to look at creating a view instead. That will allow you to include case statements in it and you won't have to update your mapping table every time some data changes.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/statements/create-view-transact-sql
If you include more information people will probably help further.
I have lots of sql tables. The tables are "dependent" , i.e. constraints on foreign keys are defined between the tables.
I need to transfer the tables from sql to csv. What is correct way to do that:
Define tables exactly as they are defined in sql? (What should I do with the foreign keys?)
Try to generate other tables by joining the existing ones based on foreign keys in order to hide the foreign keys dependencies?
May be there are other options? What are the pros and cons ?
Thanks,
Note:This is need for another application that run some anylitics on the data
I would suggest to create a view in SQL which contains all information from all tables you need in your CSV later.
The view already implements the dependencies (link of two rows from different tables) and linkes all together in one table.
It would be way easier than your second proposal to create a new table because the view will do all the work for you.
I guess you will need your dependencies.
So you should not ignore them.
Here a quick example how they work:
Lets say you have 2 Tables the first one is named persons and the second one is cars. In the persons table you have 3 columns: ID, Name, Age. In the second one you have ID, Car. To see which person has which car you just check which id from the first table has which value for car in the second one.
If you link them together in a view the result is one single table with the columns ID, Person, Age, Car.
Same does the view.
Later you can simply export the view to CSV.
Maybe I can help you better if you define your needs a bit more detailed.
What kind of data is in your tables, how are they linked(what are the primary/secondary keys).
Is there a way to reference a table by id. Essentially, the table contains rows which pertain to one of many tables.
e.g. I need to reference tables A or B or C in table D's rows so that I know which table to join on.
I assume that if there is no shorthand way to reference a table externally then the only option is to store the table's name.
There is a "shorthand reference" for a table: the object identifier - the OID of the catalog table pg_class. Simple way to get it:
SELECT 'schema_name.tbl_name'::regclass
However, do not persist this in your user tables. OIDs of system tables are not stable across dump / restore cycles.
Also, plain SQL statements do not allow to parameterize table names. So you'll have to jump through hoops to use your idea in queries. Either dynamic SQL or multiple LEFT JOINs with CASE statements ... potentially expensive.
I would like to create a table called "NOTES". I was thinking this table would contain a "table_name" VARCHAR(100) which indicates what table put in the note, a "key" or multiple "key" columns representing the primary key values of the table that this note applies to and a "note" field VARCHAR(MAX). When other tables use this table they would supply THEIR primary key(s) and their "table_name" and get all the notes associated with the primary key(s) they supplied. The problem is that other tables might have 1, 2 or more PKs so I am looking for ideas on how I can design this...
What you're suggesting sounds a little convoluted to me. I would suggest something like this.
Notes
------
Id - PK
NoteTypeId - FK to NoteTypes.Id
NoteContent
NoteTypes
----------
Id - PK
Description - This could replace the "table_name" column you suggested
SomeOtherTable
--------------
Id - PK
...
Other Columns
...
NoteId - FK to Notes.Id
This would allow you to keep your data better normalized, but still get the relationships between data that you want. Note that this assumes a 1:1 relationship between rows in your other tables and Notes. If that relationship will be many to one, you'll need a cross table.
Have a look at this thread about database normalization
What is Normalisation (or Normalization)?
Additionally, you can check this resource to learn more about foreign keys
http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_foreignkey.asp
Instead of putting the other table name's and primary key's in this table, have the primary key of the NOTES table be NoteId. Create an FK in each other table that will make a note, and store the corresponding NoteId's in the other tables. Then you can simply join on NoteId from all of these other tables to the NOTES table.
As I understand your problem, you're attempting to "abstract" the auditing of multiple tables in a way that you might abstract a class in OOP.
While it's a great OOP design principle, it falls flat in databases for multiple reasons. Perhaps the largest single reason is that if you cannot envision it, neither will someone (even you) looking at it later have an easy time reassembling the data. Smaller that that though, is that while you tend to think of a table as a container and thus similar to an object, in reality they are implemented instances of this hypothetical container you are trying to put together and operate better if you treat them as such. By creating an audit table specific to a table or a subset of tables that share structural similarity and data similarity, you increase the performance of your database and you won't run in to strange trigger or select related issues later.
And you can't envision it not because you're not good at what you're doing, but rather, the structure is not conducive to database logging.
Instead, I would recommend that you create separate logging tables that manage the auditing of each table you want to audit or log. In fact, some fast google searches show many scripts already written to do much of this tasking for you: Example of one such search
You should create these individual tables and then if you want to be able to report on multiple table or even all tables at once, you can create a stored procedure (if you want to make queries based on criterion) or a view with an included SELECT statement that JOINs and/or UNIONs the tables you are interested in - in a fashion that makes sense to the report type. You'll still have to write new objects in to the view, but even with your original table design, you'd have to account for that.
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.