In other words, if I have two foreign key constraints on the same column, will both constraints have to be met or just one in order to successfully add the record?
If you have several constraints defined on a table, then when an operation happens on the table ALL constraints needs to be met. Please note that this applies to ALL types of constraints, not only foreign constraints (that you initially questionned about) :
UNIQUE
NOT NULL
CHECK
FOREIGN KEY
See the sqlite documentation for more information about table ad column constraints.
Related
Is the assumption that each foreign key added a to a table also adds a CHECK constraint that ensures that values inserted in the foreign key column is from the set of values from the table where that key is the primary key.
This would imply that a table with more foreign keys would take longer to insert a value into. Is this correct?
I am using Microsoft SQL Server 2014.
Yes. Foreign key relationships are checked when data is inserted or modified in the table.
The foreign key needs to be to a primary key or unique key. This guarantees that an index is available for the check.
In general, looking up the value in the index should be pretty fast. Faster than the other things that are going on in an insert, such as finding a free page for the data and logging the data.
However, validating the foreign key is going to add some overhead.
Don't mix up foreign keys and checks - there are two different constraint types. For example check accepts nulls and foreign keys not (exception: on delete set null fk option).
When rows are inserted/updated in database set od step is beeing executed, e.g. checking existance of tables, columns, veryfing privileges. Where you have fk database engine must verify contraint before inserting/updateing data to the table - it's additional step to execute.
I have never expirienced situation, when fk painfully slowed down the database operations duration.
I am currently learning SQL, and I have a physical data model I need to implement in code. However, during constraint creation, the numbers appearing next to FK and U started confusing me immensely. Consider the diagram. EDIT: Added the full physical model.
I know that when the matter is Primary Keys, we must have a single PK Constraint that's all the columns marked as PK. However, when the thing is FK or Unique constraints, I'm not so sure myself.
Let's assume I want to create the FK constraints for the table Opcao.
Should I create a single constraint for multiple columns, referencing their respective columns like this:
ALTER TABLE MySchema.Opcao ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_SUPERKEY] FOREIGN KEY ([prova], [aluno], [pergunta], [dataRealizacao])
REFERENCES MySchema.Integra([prova], [aluno], [pergunta], [dataRealizacao]);
Or create a constraint for each column, like this:
ALTER TABLE MySchema.Opcao ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_OPCAO_PROVA] FOREIGN KEY ([prova])
REFERENCES MySchema.Integra([prova]);
ALTER TABLE MySchema.Opcao ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_OPCAO_ALUNO] FOREIGN KEY ([aluno])
REFERENCES MySchema.Integra([aluno]);
ALTER TABLE MySchema.Opcao ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_OPCAO_PERGUNTA] FOREIGN KEY ([pergunta])
REFERENCES MySchema.Integra([pergunta]);
ALTER TABLE MySchema.Opcao ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_OPCAO_DATAREALIZACAO] FOREIGN KEY ([dataRealizacao])
REFERENCES MySchema.Integra([dataRealizacao]);
Would the Unique constraints follow the same logic? How do I know when to do one or the other?
You want to make a foreign key consisting of three columns which have to match all the three columns in the referenced table?
Then you should use in my oppinion on constraint for the three columns, because its the semantic you want to tell.
The one constraint for each column approach has the same effect, but you have to think a little to get the intension.
Some other tips: I don't get the semantic of the schema because i don't know the language the entities are named in. It would be easier if they were named in english. One thing i saw is the pergunta column which is duplicated and needs to be consistent in opcao, Integra und Pergunta table, this may lead to problems.
I generally helped me to always make an artifical auto increment primary key for every table (even the join tables for n to m relations), and always reference this artificial key. Then you have less problems (with case insensitivity for example) and the schema is in my oppinion easier to understand.
I have table in my data base with these specs:
one PK
3 fields with foreign key
some statistic fields
problem is here:
In every row only one FK field will be filled.
What is the best solution A or B?
A- define 3 FK for my table
B- define one field as FK_TYPE and one field as DEMAND_FK and use checking on FK_TYPE for result
Option A - if you've got to have this design, you'll need a separate column for each foreign key. There's no (standard) way to define a "conditional" foreign key.
If your system supports check constraints, include a check constraint so that exactly one of the FK columns is not null. If it doesn't support check constraints, add triggers that enforce this same check.
If I am not wrong, B can not be possible in any relational database. Foreign key can only reference to only one primary key of a table. If you use B then you have to add the constrain in application level. Otherwise use A.
Im modelling a database in MSSQL 2008.
I have 4 tables.
**User**
userID
userName
**NewsCategory**
newsCategoryID
newsCategoryName
**News**
newsID
newsText
newsCategoryID
**Subscription**
userID
categoryID
I understand that I should have foreign keys between the News and the Category tables. But what should I do with the supscriptions? Should I have a Foreign Key between User and Subscription tables though it's not mandatory to subscribe for something?
Yes you should. Foreign key is used for be sure, that Subscription is created for existing user. Foreign key does not mean, that user should be subscribed on something.
Yes you should have this foreign key because it will prevent a Subscription from existing that does not map to a real user id.
It acts as a constraint on your data.
Subscription is a link (many-many) table and "not mandatory" means there will no row for that user or that user/category.
The foreign key is required to enforce data integrity when you do have subscriptions which will be one or more rows.
Note: In optional parent-child type relationships the FK column(s) will be NULLable to capture "non mandatory". In link tables this is captured by row non-existence
Yes, you should add Foreign keys between User and SubCription tables with Subscription table.
Foreign key contraints are for the validating of adding wrong information to the database. For example, in your Subscription table, there shouldn't be userIDs which are not in the User table and there should be CategoryIDs which are not in the NewsCategory table. These contraints will do the validation for you even if you don't do the validation at the user interface end.
You've gotten some good answers. Let me try to add another.
A SUBSCRIPTION requires both a subscriber and a category. Therefore, each of these columns should not allow nulls. Preventing nulls is not the same thing as a foreign key constraint.
It should also be impossible to insert a row into SUBSCRIPTIONS if the user does not already exist in the USERS table; and it should be impossible to insert a row into SUBSCRIPTIONS if the category does not already exist in the CATEGORIES table. To enforce these rules your SUBSCRIPTIONS table requires two foreign key constraints:
ALTER TABLE SUBSCRIPTIONS ADD CONSTRAINT FK_SUBSCRIPTIONS_USERS FOREIGN KEY(userid) REFERENCES USERS(userid)
ALTER TABLE SUBSCRIPTIONS ADD CONSTRAINT FK_SUBSCRIPTIONS_CATEGORIES FOREIGN KEY(categoryid) REFERENCES CATEGORIES(categoryid)
When you create a foreign key constraint on a table, you are in effect saying to the database engine: make sure that any value that gets inserted into this table already exists in that other table. BTW, a requirement for the constraint to be created is that a unique constraint must be in effect on the column(s) referenced in that table; typically, the referenced column(s) of that table will be the primary key of that table.
By creating a foreign key constraint, you are not saying to the database engine: make sure a row gets inserted into this table. It is quite possible (though it would be unusual) that this table has no rows in it whatsoever. The foreign key constraint simply makes sure that any value that does get inserted into this table has a counterpart in that table.
i am quite confused about the difference between a FOREIGN KEY and CHECK constraint - they appear to me to achieve the same result.
I mean I could create a table and enforce a Foreign key on another table, but i could create a CHECK to ensure the value in in another table.
What is the difference and when to use the one or the other?
A FOREIGN KEY constrain ensures that the entry DOES EXISTS in
EDIT
another table
as per correct comment Exists in another table... or the same table. – Mark Byers
A CHECK constrain ensures that the entry follows some rule.
CHECK Constraints
CHECK constraints enforce domain integrity by limiting the values that are accepted by a column. They are similar to FOREIGN KEY constraints in that they control the values that are put in a column. The difference is in how they determine which values are valid: FOREIGN KEY constraints obtain the list of valid values from another table, and CHECK constraints determine the valid values from a logical expression that is not based on data in another column.
A foreign key constraint is more powerful than a CHECK constraint.
A foreign key constraint means that the column (in the current table) can only have values that already exist in the column of the foreign table (which can include the be the same table, often done for hierarchical data). This means that as the list of values changes - gets bigger or smaller - there's no need to update the constraint.
A check constraint can not reference any columns outside of the current table, and can not contain a subquery. Often, the values are hard coded like BETWEEN 100 and 999 or IN (1, 2, 3). This means that as things change, you'll have to update the CHECK constraint every time. Also, a foreign key relationship is visible on an Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD), while a CHECK constraint will never be. The benefit is that someone can read the ERD and construct a query from it without using numerous DESC table commands to know what columns are where and what relates to what to construct proper joins.
Best practice is to use foreign keys (and supporting tables) first. Use CHECK constraints as a backup for situations where you can't use a foreign key, not as the primary solution to validate data.
It depends on your DBMS (which you didn't specify), but in one sense, you are correct: a foreign key constraint is a particular case of a check constraint. There are DBMS which would not allow you to formulate a foreign key constraint as a check constraint.
The main intention of a check constraint is to describe conditions that apply to a single row in the table. For example, I have a table of elements (as in Hydrogen, Helium, ...) and the symbols for the elements are constrained to start with an upper-case letter and are followed by zero, one or two lower-case letters (two lower-case letters for as yet undiscovered but predicted elements: Uus - ununseptium (117), which has just been isolated but has yet to be named). This can be the subject of a CHECK constraint:
CHECK(Symbol MATCHES "[A-Z][a-z]{0,2}")
assuming MATCHES exists and supports an appropriate regular expression language.
You can also have check constraints that compare values:
CHECK(OrderDate <= ShipDate OR ShipDate IS NULL)
To express a foreign key constraint as a check constraint, you have to be permitted to execute a query in the CHECK clause. Hypothetically:
CHECK(EXISTS(SELECT * FROM SomeTable AS s
WHERE ThisTable.pk_col1 = s.pk_col1 AND
ThisTable.pk_col2 = s.pk_col2))
This example shows some of the problems. I don't have a convenient table alias for the table in which I'm writing the check constraint - I assumed it was 'ThisTable'. The construct is verbose. Assuming that the primary key on SomeTable is declared on columns pk_col1 and pk_col2, then the FOREIGN KEY clause is much more compact:
FOREIGN KEY (pk_col1, pk_col2) REFERENCES SomeTable
Or, if you are referencing an alternative key, not the primary key:
FOREIGN KEY (pk_col1, pk_col2) REFERENCES SomeTable(ak_col1, ak_col2)
This is notationally more compact - so there is less chance of getting it wrong - and can be special-cased by the server because the special notation means it knows that it is dealing with a foreign key constraint whereas the general check clause has to be scrutinized to see if it matches one of many possible forms that are equivalent to the foreign key.
The question asks: when to use a check constraint and when to use a foreign key constraint?
Use a CHECK constraint to specify criteria that can be checked in a single row.
Use a FOREIGN KEY constraint to specify that the values in the current row must match the values of a row in some other unique key (a candidate key, usually the primary key rather than an alternative key) of some table - which may be the same table or (more usually) a different table.
Consider a scenario like this:
Table A has a keyword column, and the value must be among thousand of keywords provided.
How would you like to implement the constraint?
Hard coded check condition like check (keyword in ('a', 'b', 'c' .......)) or simply import the provided keywords as another table and set a foreign key constraint to keyword column of Table A.