I'm new to SQL and ask for your help.
There are 3 tables, these are "Employees", "Positions" and "EmployeesPositions".
For example, 2 positions can be attached to one employee.
How to link tables so that duplicates do not occur? I read about foreign keys and JOIN, but I have not yet figured out how to do it correctly.
Table structure:
Employees (id, Name);
Positions (id, Post, Rate); EmployeesPositions - I do not know how to make it right.
What I need: when adding an employee to the "Employees" table, associate an entry with posts from the "Positions" table, but as I wrote above, one employee can be associated with 2 posts (but not always). How correctly to implement the third table (EmployeesPositions), because in Positions only posts and rates are stored, and in EmployeesPositions there should be records, for example, Name1 => Post1 and Post2, and Name2 only Post 1?
If I thought something wrong, tell me please how best to implement it.
There are several ways to solve your problem, each with their own pros and cons.
First if we simplify your problem to "an employee has zero or more positions", then you can use the following table to associate an employee with a position:
create table employeespositions (
employee_id integer not null,
position_id integer not null,
constraint pk_employeespositions
primary key (employee_id, position_id),
constraint fk_employeespositions_employee
foreign key (employee_id) references employees (id),
constraint fk_employeespositions_position
foreign key (position_id) references positions (id)
)
The foreign keys enforce the existence of the employee and the position, while the primary key ensures a combination of employee and position only exists once.
This solution has two downsides:
It does not enforce that an employee has at least one position
It allows an employee to have more than two positions
The second problem is easily fixed by adding a trigger that checks if there is at most 1 position for an employee when attempting to insert (this allows a maximum of two):
create exception tooManyPositions 'Too many positions for employee';
set term #;
recreate trigger employeespositions_bi
active before insert on employeespositions
as
declare position_count integer;
begin
select count(*)
from employeespositions
where employee_id = new.employee_id
into position_count;
if (position_count > 1) then
exception tooManyPositions;
end#
set term ;#
However this solution does not enforce that an employee has at least one position. You could add a before delete trigger that ensures that the last position cannot be deleted, but that does not ensure that a newly created employee has at least one position. If you want to enforce that, you may want to consider using stored procedures for inserting and updating employees and their positions, and have the code of those stored procedures enforce that (eg by requiring a position when creating an employee).
Alternatively, you could also consider denormalizing your design, and making the positions part of the employees record, where the employee has a 'primary' and (optionally) a 'secondary' position.
create table employees (
-- using Firebird 3 identity column, change if necessary
id integer generated by default as identity primary key,
name varchar(100),
primary_position_id integer not null,
secondary_position_id integer,
constraint fk_employees_primary_position
foreign key (primary_position_id) references positions (id),
constraint fk_employees_secondary_position
foreign key (secondary_position_id) references positions (id),
constraint chk_no_duplicate_position
check (secondary_position_id <> primary_position_id)
)
The not null constraint on primary_position_id enforces the existence of this position, while the check constraint prevents assignment of the same position to both columns. Optionally you could consider adding a before insert or update trigger that when primary_position_id is set null, will set it to the value of secondary_position_id and sets secondary_position_id to null.
This solution has the advantage of allowing the enforcement of the existence of a primary position, but may lead to additional complexities when querying positions. This disadvantage can be overcome by creating a view:
create view employeespositions
as
select id as employee_id, primary_position_id as position_id
from employees
union all
select id as employee_id, secondary_position_id as position_id
from employees
where secondary_position_id is not null;
This view can then be used as if it is a table (although you can't insert into it).
Related
Oracle newbie here. I need to build a database which fulfils the requirements below:
A department is allowed to register for only two programs in a year
The maximum participants in each program must not exceed the number of people in respective departments.
*There are 14 departments in total.
As per requirement, seems like I have to restrict the number of rows inserted.
For example, if the total number of people in Department A is 100, the 101st row has to be rejected.
Apologies if there are many errors as I'm writing this question because now is 1.30AM. I tried to keep the table simple with less columns so it's easier to test the code.
CREATE TABLE department(
DEPT_ID CHAR(5) not null primary key,
TOTAL_P NUMBER);
CREATE TABLE participant(
P_ID CHAR(5) not null primary key,
DEPT_ID CHAR(5) not null);
CREATE TABLE program(
PROG_ID CHAR(5) not null primary key,
PROG_NAME VARCHAR(30),
DEPT_ID CHAR(5),
START_DATE DATE,
END_DATE DATE,
FOREIGN KEY(DEPT_ID) references department(DEPT_ID) on delete cascade);
and I have tried using trigger, but I keep getting warning: trigger created with compilation errors.
(I tried to count the rows in table program and group them by dept_id, then proceed to check the condition)
CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER prog
BEFORE INSERT ON program
DECLARE
CountRows NUMBER;
BEGIN
SELECT COUNT(*)
INTO CountRows
GROUP BY DEPT_ID
FROM program;
IF CountRows > 2 THEN
RAISE_APPLICATION_ERROR(-20001, 'Only 2 programs are allowed');
END IF;
END;
/
I don't even know if my idea does make sense or not. I tried many other ways like putting the condition where(to specify dept_id) before begin, after begin, I still get the warning. I have been experimenting a whole day and still cannot figure it out.
MY QUESTIONS:
Is it better to create multiple conditions in one trigger as I will have 14 departments?
if so, how to do that without getting the warning?
any alternative way to restrict the number of rows?
Any help, hints, tips, anything, is deeply appreciated. thanks.
You could do it by maintaining in the trigger handling insert/update/delete operation on the "child" table (e.g. the program), an intersection table "parent_child" (e.g. department_program) containing the 2 foreign keys on the parent/child tables, and an index on which you will put the check constraint (e.g. < 3 for the number of program per department) + any other column defining the scope of the constraint (e.g. here the year of the start_date of the program). The 2 columns with the FK, the index and the other scope columns should be the PK of this intersection table.
e.g.
CREATE TABLE program_department
(
DEPT_ID CHAR(5),
PROG_ID CHAR(5),
PROG_YEAR NUMBER(4),
PROG_IDX NUMBER(10,0) DEFAULT 0,
-- to force always equal to a number the constraint must be defererrable
CONSTRAINT CK_PROG_IDX CHECK (PROG_IDX >= 0 AND PROG_IDX < 3) ENABLE,
PRIMARY KEY (PROG_ID, DEPT_ID, PROG_YEAR, PROG_CNT)
)
;
The idea is to maintain the PROG_IDX that will contain the index of the relation between the department and the program of the specific year.
In the trigger on the table program, you have to update the program_department according to each action, when updating/removing this may imply/implies decrementing the PROG_IDX of the ones having PROG_IDX greater than the one removed.
And of course you will have to apply about the "same" logic for the participant's relationship, however there you can't hardcode the constrain by a CHECK since the # of people in each department is not known at compile time. This case is more complex also because you have to think about the consequence of changes of the # of persons in a department. Probably you will have to keep in the intersection table, the # of people in the department at the start_date of the program.
Suppose I have 2 tables, Employee and Sale.
Employee table has EMP_ID int as PK, and ACTIVE_STATUS bit (0 for inactive and 1 for active).
Sale table has SALE_ID as PK, EMP_ID as FK referencing Employee.EMP_ID and DATE_OF_SALE
Now, I want a constraint that checks if the EMP_ID I'm trying to insert into Sale has a value of 1 for the ACTIVE column in the Employee table, because I don't want to register a sale that is being attempted by an Inactive user.
How would I go about that? I tried CONSTRAINT CHECK_IF_ACTIVE CHECK(Employee.ACTIVE = 1) but it's not a valid statement.
You can do what you are specifically asking for using foreign keys and computed columns. First, define a redundant unique constraint in employees:
alter table employees add constraint unq_employees_empid_active_status on (empid, active_status);
Then, define a computed column in sales. Alas, this needs to be persisted, I think:
alter table sales add active_status as (convert(bit, 1)) persisted;
Then, define the foreign key constraint using both:
alter table sales add foreign key fk_sales_employees_active
foreign key (empid, active_status) references employees(empid, active_status);
Voila! The employee id can only reference active employees.
Now, you will have a problem with this -- be careful what you ask for. It is not really what you want. This enforces the constraint over all time. So, you won't be able to change the status on employees who have sales. That suggests that you need an insert trigger instead -- or a user defined function and check constraint:
create function is_employee_active (
#empid int
) returns bit as
begin
return (select active_status from employees e where e.empid = #empid);
end;
alter table sales add constraint chk_sales_employee_active
check (is_employee_active(empid) = convert(bit, 1));
Voila! This only does the check on insertion or updates. Note that once an employee is not active, you won't be able to update the row either.
You'll notice that I usually name my tables in the plural, because they contain lots of examples of an entity. My fingers just add the "s" when I'm thinking about tables.
I Have table three tables:
The first one is emps:
create table emps (id number primary key , name nvarchar2(20));
The second one is cars:
create table cars (id number primary key , car_name varchar2(20));
The third one is accounts:
create table accounts (acc_id number primary key, woner_table nvarchar2(20) ,
woner_id number references emps(id) references cars(id));
Now I Have these values for selected tables:
Emps:
ID Name
-------------------
1 Ali
2 Ahmed
Cars:
ID Name
------------------------
107 Camery 2016
108 Ford 2012
I Want to
Insert values in accounts table so its data should be like this:
Accounts:
Acc_no Woner_Table Woner_ID
------------------------------------------
11013 EMPS 1
12010 CARS 107
I tried to perform this SQL statement:
Insert into accounts (acc_id , woner_table , woner_id) values (11013,'EMPS',1);
BUT I get this error:
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-02291: integrity constraint (HR.SYS_C0016548) violated - parent key not found.
This error occurs because the value of woner_id column doesn't exist in cars table.
My work require link tables in this way.
How Can I Solve This Problem Please ?!..
Mean: How can I reference tables in previous way and Insert values without this problem ?..
One-of relationships are tricky in SQL. With your data structure here is one possibility:
create table accounts (
acc_id number primary key,
emp_id number references emps(id),
car_id number references car(id),
id as (coalesce(emp_id, car_id)),
woner_table as (case when emp_id is not null then 'Emps'
when car_id is not null then 'Cars'
end),
constraint chk_accounts_car_emp check (emp_id is null or car_id is null)
);
You can fetch the id in a select. However, for the insert, you need to be explicit:
Insert into accounts (acc_id , emp_id)
values (11013, 1);
Note: Earlier versions of Oracle do not support virtual columns, but you can do almost the same thing using a view.
Your approach should be changed such that your Account table contains two foreign key fields - one for each foreign table. Like this:
create table accounts (acc_id number primary key,
empsId number references emps(id),
carsId number references cars(id));
The easiest, most straightforward method to do this is as STLDeveloper says, add additional FK columns, one for each table. This also bring along with it the benefit of the database being able to enforce Referential Integrity.
BUT, if you choose not to do, then the next option is to use one FK column for the the FK values and a second column to indicate what table the value refers to. This keeps the number of columns small = 2 max, regardless of number of tables with FKs. But, this significantly increases the programming burden for the application logic and/or PL/SQL, SQL. And, of course, you completely lose Database enforcement of RI.
In order to create a FOREIGN KEY Constraint, the <AuthorizationID> that owns the referencing Table must be the current <AuthorizationID> and must have the REFERENCES Privilege on every referenced Column named. Source: https://mariadb.com/kb/en/constraint_type-foreign-key-constraint/
WHY?
The reason for the references privilege is that the table referencing another imposes a constraint on the other table, and the owner of that other table may not be willing to allow that constraint.
Let's see what could happen if there was no references privilege.
CREATE TABLE Employees
(
EmpID INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
Name VARCHAR(32) NOT NULL,
…
);
INSERT INTO Employees VALUES (1, "Hernandez", …);
Now along comes Joe and creates a table:
CREATE TABLE EmployeeRefs
(
EmpID INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES Employees
);
INSERT INTO EmployeeRefs SELECT EmpID FROM Employees;
Now suppose that the HR department needs to let Hernandez go and work elsewhere, and the code knows that the relevant EmpID is 1:
DELETE FROM Employees WHERE EmpID = 1;
This delete fails; the primary key value is still being referenced from the EmployeeRefs table.
This is what is supposed to happen as far as the DBMS is concerned. It was told that values in the EmployeeRefs.EmpID column must match a value in the Employee.EmpID column, and if it deletes Hernandez's record, that won't be true, so it must prevent the deletion (since Joe didn't set up a cascading delete).
Clearly, if any user (with privilege to create tables in the DB) can prevent the HR department from doing its work, there is a problem. The problem is resolved by saying that Joe can only create the reference to the Employee table if he has been given the REFERENCES privilege. And the owner/creator of each table gets to choose who has REFERENCES privilege for the tables that they create.
Please clarify two things for me:
Can a Foreign key be NULL?
Can a Foreign key be duplicate?
As fair as I know, NULL shouldn't be used in foreign keys, but in some application of mine I'm able to input NULL in both Oracle and SQL Server, and I don't know why.
Short answer: Yes, it can be NULL or duplicate.
I want to explain why a foreign key might need to be null or might need to be unique or not unique. First remember a Foreign key simply requires that the value in that field must exist first in a different table (the parent table). That is all an FK is by definition. Null by definition is not a value. Null means that we do not yet know what the value is.
Let me give you a real life example. Suppose you have a database that stores sales proposals. Suppose further that each proposal only has one sales person assigned and one client. So your proposal table would have two foreign keys, one with the client ID and one with the sales rep ID. However, at the time the record is created, a sales rep is not always assigned (because no one is free to work on it yet), so the client ID is filled in but the sales rep ID might be null. In other words, usually you need the ability to have a null FK when you may not know its value at the time the data is entered, but you do know other values in the table that need to be entered. To allow nulls in an FK generally all you have to do is allow nulls on the field that has the FK. The null value is separate from the idea of it being an FK.
Whether it is unique or not unique relates to whether the table has a one-one or a one-many relationship to the parent table. Now if you have a one-one relationship, it is possible that you could have the data all in one table, but if the table is getting too wide or if the data is on a different topic (the employee - insurance example #tbone gave for instance), then you want separate tables with a FK. You would then want to make this FK either also the PK (which guarantees uniqueness) or put a unique constraint on it.
Most FKs are for a one to many relationship and that is what you get from a FK without adding a further constraint on the field. So you have an order table and the order details table for instance. If the customer orders ten items at one time, he has one order and ten order detail records that contain the same orderID as the FK.
1 - Yes, since at least SQL Server 2000.
2 - Yes, as long as it's not a UNIQUE constraint or linked to a unique index.
Yes foreign key can be null as told above by senior programmers... I would add another scenario where Foreign key will required to be null....
suppose we have tables comments, Pictures and Videos in an application which allows comments on pictures and videos. In comments table we can have two Foreign Keys PicturesId, and VideosId along with the primary Key CommentId. So when you comment on a video only VideosId would be required and pictureId would be null... and if you comment on a picture only PictureId would be required and VideosId would be null...
it depends on what role this foreign key plays in your relation.
if this foreign key is also a key attribute in your relation, then it can't be NULL
if this foreign key is a normal attribute in your relation, then it can be NULL.
Here's an example using Oracle syntax:
First let's create a table COUNTRY
CREATE TABLE TBL_COUNTRY ( COUNTRY_ID VARCHAR2 (50) NOT NULL ) ;
ALTER TABLE TBL_COUNTRY ADD CONSTRAINT COUNTRY_PK PRIMARY KEY ( COUNTRY_ID ) ;
Create the table PROVINCE
CREATE TABLE TBL_PROVINCE(
PROVINCE_ID VARCHAR2 (50) NOT NULL ,
COUNTRY_ID VARCHAR2 (50)
);
ALTER TABLE TBL_PROVINCE ADD CONSTRAINT PROVINCE_PK PRIMARY KEY ( PROVINCE_ID ) ;
ALTER TABLE TBL_PROVINCE ADD CONSTRAINT PROVINCE_COUNTRY_FK FOREIGN KEY ( COUNTRY_ID ) REFERENCES TBL_COUNTRY ( COUNTRY_ID ) ;
This runs perfectly fine in Oracle. Notice the COUNTRY_ID foreign key in the second table doesn't have "NOT NULL".
Now to insert a row into the PROVINCE table, it's sufficient to only specify the PROVINCE_ID. However, if you chose to specify a COUNTRY_ID as well, it must exist already in the COUNTRY table.
By default there are no constraints on the foreign key, foreign key can be null and duplicate.
while creating a table / altering the table, if you add any constrain of uniqueness or not null then only it will not allow the null/ duplicate values.
Simply put, "Non-identifying" relationships between Entities is part of ER-Model and is available in Microsoft Visio when designing ER-Diagram. This is required to enforce cardinality between Entities of type " zero or more than zero", or "zero or one". Note this "zero" in cardinality instead of "one" in "one to many".
Now, example of non-identifying relationship where cardinality may be "zero" (non-identifying) is when we say a record / object in one entity-A "may" or "may not" have a value as a reference to the record/s in another Entity-B.
As, there is a possibility for one record of entity-A to identify itself to the records of other Entity-B, therefore there should be a column in Entity-B to have the identity-value of the record of Entity-B. This column may be "Null" if no record in Entity-A identifies the record/s (or, object/s) in Entity-B.
In Object Oriented (real-world) Paradigm, there are situations when an object of Class-B does not necessarily depends (strongly coupled) on object of class-A for its existence, which means Class-B is loosely-coupled with Class-A such that Class-A may "Contain" (Containment) an object of Class-A, as opposed to the concept of object of Class-B must have (Composition) an object of Class-A, for its (object of class-B) creation.
From SQL Query point of view, you can query all records in entity-B which are "not null" for foreign-key reserved for Entity-B. This will bring all records having certain corresponding value for rows in Entity-A alternatively all records with Null value will be the records which do not have any record in Entity-A in Entity-B.
Can a Foreign key be NULL?
Existing answers focused on single column scenario. If we consider multi column foreign key we have more options using MATCH [SIMPLE | PARTIAL | FULL] clause defined in SQL Standard:
PostgreSQL-CREATE TABLE
A value inserted into the referencing column(s) is matched against the values of the referenced table and referenced columns using the given match type. There are three match types: MATCH FULL, MATCH PARTIAL, and MATCH SIMPLE (which is the default). MATCH FULL will not allow one column of a multicolumn foreign key to be null unless all foreign key columns are null; if they are all null, the row is not required to have a match in the referenced table. MATCH SIMPLE allows any of the foreign key columns to be null; if any of them are null, the row is not required to have a match in the referenced table. MATCH PARTIAL is not yet implemented.
(Of course, NOT NULL constraints can be applied to the referencing column(s) to prevent these cases from arising.)
Example:
CREATE TABLE A(a VARCHAR(10), b VARCHAR(10), d DATE , UNIQUE(a,b));
INSERT INTO A(a, b, d)
VALUES (NULL, NULL, NOW()),('a', NULL, NOW()),(NULL, 'b', NOW()),('c', 'b', NOW());
CREATE TABLE B(id INT PRIMARY KEY, ref_a VARCHAR(10), ref_b VARCHAR(10));
-- MATCH SIMPLE - default behaviour nulls are allowed
ALTER TABLE B ADD CONSTRAINT B_Fk FOREIGN KEY (ref_a, ref_b)
REFERENCES A(a,b) MATCH SIMPLE;
INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (1, NULL, 'b');
-- (NULL/'x') 'x' value does not exists in A table, but insert is valid
INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (2, NULL, 'x');
ALTER TABLE B DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS B_Fk; -- cleanup
-- MATCH PARTIAL - not implemented
ALTER TABLE B ADD CONSTRAINT B_Fk FOREIGN KEY (ref_a, ref_b)
REFERENCES A(a,b) MATCH PARTIAL;
-- ERROR: MATCH PARTIAL not yet implemented
DELETE FROM B; ALTER TABLE B DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS B_Fk; -- cleanup
-- MATCH FULL nulls are not allowed
ALTER TABLE B ADD CONSTRAINT B_Fk FOREIGN KEY (ref_a, ref_b)
REFERENCES A(a,b) MATCH FULL;
-- FK is defined, inserting NULL as part of FK
INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (1, NULL, 'b');
-- ERROR: MATCH FULL does not allow mixing of null and nonnull key values.
-- FK is defined, inserting all NULLs - valid
INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (1, NULL, NULL);
db<>fiddle demo
I think it is better to consider the possible cardinality we have in the tables.
We can have possible minimum cardinality zero. When it is optional, the minimum participation of tuples from the related table could be zero, Now you face the necessity of foreign key values to be allowed null.
But the answer is it all depends on the Business.
The idea of a foreign key is based on the concept of referencing a value that already exists in the main table. That is why it is called a foreign key in the other table. This concept is called referential integrity. If a foreign key is declared as a null field it will violate the the very logic of referential integrity. What will it refer to? It can only refer to something that is present in the main table. Hence, I think it would be wrong to declare a foreign key field as null.
I think foreign key of one table also primary key to some other table.So it won't allows nulls.So there is no question of having null value in foreign key.