I feel like this may be a bit of a unique problem, but hopefully someone out there has come across a similar situation.
My application uses this database table:
DT table
The issue is with Field1 - 9.
Depending on how the user decides to set up their instance of the app there can be any number of fields used (from 0 - 9). The information for these are held in this Table:
Field Table
So for this example there are only to be two fields. And when a record is created for the DT table, field 1 and 2 will have data entered and all other field columns will be NULL. Obviously this isn't good practice, as for one, if a field name was changed in the future, all previous data wouldn't make sense.
I've been trying to think of a way to structure it differently. all I can think of is somehow when a DT record is created it will hold foreign keys to the fields that were used, but it seems that it's not possible to have multiple foreign keys in one column.
Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
One way to normalize this would be to factor out the repeating fields to a separate table, where you would have one entry per field with DT_id as a foreign key to the DT table.
DT Table:
ID
Start
End
...
DT_field table:
ID
DT_id (foreign key)
Value
Related
I've got a database called SimpleCredentials in which there is a table called dbo.Properties which has (PK) UserID and then some other attributes like Name, Date of Birth etc. There is another Primary Key attribute called ExtendedCredentials which is a string dbo.UserID. So, for example the user with UserID = S-1-5-21-2177 will have the string dbo.S15212177 in their ExtendedCredentials column.
I've got another database called ExtendedCredentials. For every User there is a unique table in that database. Using the previous example, there will be a table called dbo.S15212177.
So, if I have 100 users there will be 100 rows in the dbo.Properties table in the SimpleCredentials database, and there will be 100 unique tables incorporating their UserID in the ExtendedCredentials database.
I want to create an entity relationship diagram, and eventually a MS SQL schema, but how do I represent the multiplicity of dbo.UserIDs and their relationship to their dbo.UserID string attribute in dbo.Properties?
Am I getting something fundamentally wrong here?
You may ask why I don't have a single database called ExtendedProperties with a single table in which each row is the UserID PK and the various extended properties are contained in columns. The simple answer is that some properties are themselves tables. Not every user has the same attributes in those tables. And I can't know ahead of time (a priori) what the full set of user extended property attributes is. So each user gets a table of their own.
Is there a better way to do this?
I'm having an exercise requiring to create two table for a travel business:
Activity
Booking
it turns out that the column activities in the Booking table references from the Activities table. However it contains multiple value. How do I sort it out? If I insert multiple rows there will possibly duplication in the Booking's primary key.
As Gordon mentioned you should refactor your tables for better normalization. If I interpret your intent correctly this is more like what your schema should look like. Booking should only contain an ID for adventure and an ID for Customer. You will add a row to [AdventureActivity] for each activity booked on a [Booking]. With this design you can JOIN tables and get all the data you require without having to try to parse out multiple values in a column.
This is my first post, so please excuse me for any obvious or simple questions as I am very new to programming and all my projects are a first to me.
I am currently working on my first database project. A relational database using Oracle sql. I'm new on my course, so I am not sure on all the concepts yet, but working at it.
I have used some modelling software to help me construct a 13 table database. I have setup all my columns and assigned primary and foreign keys to all 13 tables. What I am looking to do now is insert 10 rows of test data into each table. I have done the parent tables but am confused about the child tables. When I assign ID numbers to all the parent tables primary keys, will the child tables foreign keys be populated at the same time?
I have not used sequences yet as I'm not 100% how to make them work, but instead inputted my own values like 100, 101, 102 etc. I know those values need to be in the foreign key, but wouldn't manually inserting them into many tables get confusing?
Is there an easier approach to this or am I over complicating the process?
I will need to use some queries later but I just want to be happy that the data is sound.
Thanks for your help
Rob
No, the child table data won't be populated automatically-- if there is a child table, that implies that there is a 0 or 1 to m relationship between the two. One row in the parent table may have 0 rows in the child table or it may have dozens so nothing could possibly be populated automatically.
If you are manually assigning primary key values, you'd need to hard code those same values as the foreign key values when you insert data into the child tables. In the real world, you wouldn't manually insert data into many tables at once, you'd have an application that did so and that knew what keys to use based on parameters passed in or by getting the currval of the sequence used to populate the primary key after inserting into the parent table.
Its necessary that data for foreign key should be present in parent table, but not the other way around.
If you want to create test data, i suggest you use something like below query.
insert into child_table(fk_column,column1,column2....)
select pk_column,'#dummy_value1#','#dummy_value2#',..
from parent_table
if you have 10 rows in parent, this will add 10 rows in child.
If you want more rows, e.g. 100 for each parent value you need to duplicate the parent data. for that use below query.
insert into child_table(fk_column,column1,column2....)
select pk_column,'#dummy_value1#','#dummy_value2#',..
from parent_table
join (select level from dual connect by level<10)
this will add 100 child values for 10 parent values..
Lets assume I have 2 tables:
Order -< OrderItem
I have another table with 2 FKs:
Feature
- Id
- FkOrderId
- FkOrderItemId
- Text
UPDATE
This table is linked to another called FeatureReason which is common to both types of record, be they OrderFeatures or OrderItem features.
Feature -< FeatureReason
If I had 2 feature tables to account for both types of records, would this then require 2 FeatureReason tables. Same issue here with the FeatureReason table needing to have 2 FKs, each pointing to a different master table.
An Order can have a Feature record, as can an OrderItem. Therefore either "FkOrderId" OR FkOrderItemId would be populated. Is this fine to do?
I would also seriously think about using Views to to insert/edit and read either OrderFeatures or OrderItemFeatures.
Thoughts appreciated.
I would recommend using following structure, because if you have 2 foreign keys which either of them can be null, you can have rows with both columns being null or having value.
Added the FeatureReason table too
You can do this, but why? What is your reasoning for collating these two distinct items in a single table?
I would suggest having two separate tables, OrderFeatures and OrderItemFeatures, and on those occasions that you need to query both, collate them with a union query.
It is possible to have 2 foreign keys in one table. As long as the foreign key is mapping with the primary key on another table, it's OK
By not populating FkOrderItemId or FkOrderId, will you not be violating one or other of the FK constraints?
You can populate FkOrderItemId or FkOrderId according to your needs, I'm just not sure about defining an FK where it is not mandatory to supply a FK value.
Just a thought...
I want to do something like this:
INSERT INTO T SELECT * FROM T WHERE Column1 = 'MagicValue' -- (multiple rows may be affected)
The problem is that T has a primary key column and so this causes an error as if trying to set the primary key. And frankly, I don't want to set the primary key either. I want to create entirely new rows with new primary keys but the rest of the fields being copied over from the original rows.
This is supposed to be generic code applicable to various tables. Well, so if there is no nice way of doing this, I will just write code to dynamically extract column names, construct the list etc. But maybe there is? Am I the first guy trying to create duplicate rows in a database or something?
I'm assuming by "Primary Key" you mean identity or guid data types that auto-assign or auto-increment.
Without some very fancy dynamic SQL, you can't do what you are after. If you want to insert everything but the identity field, you need to specify fields.
If you want to specify a value for that field, you need to specify all the fields in the SELECT and in the INSERT AND turn on IDENTITY_INSERT.
You don't gain anything from duplicating a row in a database (considering you didn't try to set the Primary Key). It would be wiser and will avoid problem to have another column called "amount" or something.
something like
UPDATE T SET Amount = Amount + 1 WHERE Column1 = 'MagicValue'
or if it can increase by more than 1 like amount of returned fields
Update T SET Amount = Amount * 2 WHERE Column1 = 'MagicValue'
I'm not sure what you're trying to do exactly but if the above doesn't work for what you're doing I think your design requires a new table and insert it there.
EDIT: Also as mentioned under your comments, a generic insert doesn't really make sense. Imagine, for this to work, you need the same number of fields, and they will hold the same values suggesting that they should also have the same names(even if it wouldn't require it to). It would basically be the same table structure twice.