I am looking at creating temporal tables https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt604462.aspx in our database but I cant on a couple of tables that have computed columns.
The error message returned is rather self explanatory
"Computed column is defined with a user-defined function which is not allowed with system-versioned table"
but I was hoping there was a way to exclude or ignore columns from being tracked?
I have tried dropping the computed column creating the history table then adding the computed column back into the table but this didn't work.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks
Edit -
I wasn't able to find a way to ignore columns from being tracked but we were able to refactor out the columns that used UDFs thus enabling us to use temporal tables.
I was struggling with adding a computed column to an existing system-versioned table. In case anyone else with a similar problem lands here, I finally realized that the history table doesn't treat the column the same way. It ends up being similar to having an IDENTITY column on the base table, but that would result in a regular INT field on the history table.
If you are attempting to add a computed column to a system-versioned (temporal) table:
First turn off system versioning
Then add your computed column to the base table
Verify the "type" of the resulting computed column
Add the column with the appropriate static type to the history table
Turn system versioning back on (DO NOT FORGET TO SPECIFY THE HISTORY TABLE)
I find it rather odd that you can accidentally omit the history_table when turning system versioning back on. I'd expect either it would resume versioning to the same table OR throw some kind of error considering it might be a bit unexpected behavior.
#pasquale-ceglie - I don't have enough reputation to comment, but I wanted to expand on what you said. You should be able to use most computed columns with temporal tables, just more manually. Basically you can't copy the schema definition with the computed columns, you can however replicate the resulting columns and generate the appropriate history table before trying to turn everything on. The definitions are just a bit different between the two tables (was quite confusing to me at first). I subscribed here, ping me if the above isn't clear and are curious.
System-versioned table schema modification fail because adding computed column while system-versioning is ON is not supported, so for the same reason you can't transform a regular table into a temporal one if there are computed columns on it.
Hope will help,
Related
In our database we have many tables with a 'Notes' column. This is important functionality, but for most rows the value of Notes is null. These tables have many columns and we would like to remove some columns for better legibility.
We could add one Notes table for every table that has a notes column. But this would create clutter of a different kind- too many small tables.
My idea is to create a generic Notes table and also a reference table. The Notes table would have a column for the notes text, a column for the id of the row being linked to, and a foreign key to the reference table. The reference table would have a text value for each table for which we need notes. Using these two tables we should be able to link the note back to whichever table and column it came from.
By using this solution, we remove any cases of null values from notes and also slim down some of our tables. All at the modest price of two additional tables. It feels very 'hacky' to me however. Is there a reason why using a 'generic' id column or a reference table of other tables is a bad idea from a DB management perspective?
Managing the references to disparate entities can be really challenging in SQL Server. Postgres, by contrast, supports inheritance which makes this much simpler.
So, my recommendation is to add a notes column to every entity where you want notes. You an add a view to bring all the notes together if you need a view of all the notes.
This has minimal impact on performance or data size. There is no additional overhead for a varchar column, other than the additional NULL bit -- and that is pretty minimal.
IMO, the other solution of managing two tables doesn't bring in much efficiency but adds complexity to the solution. You should probably stick with the the notes column in the original table with datatype as varchar.
Generic id column is not bad inherently but the use of it generally gives smell of bad/hacky design.
Additionaly for SQL Server you can use sparse for the note columns to reduce size.
But i used a similary approach myself. (Note column needed for many columns to write info / changerequest / lockcomment. But normally never used).
Works fine and can be programmed genericaly in source.
But if you need only one comment column per table i wood prefer sparse
Is it good practice to add some placeholder columns when creating a database table with millions of rows, in case the schema gets changed later? More efficient to rename a column than to insert a new one?
There are many problems with adding "placeholder" columns to a table.
These columns may take up useless space, and appear "sloppy".
You may create too many columns now, and have columns that will never be used.
You may not create enough columns now, and will have to end up creating more anyways.
You don't know what the column data types will be at this time.
Always remember that if a column needs added at a later date and will not be used for any of the current rows in the table, you can still keep the table normalized by creating a smaller table that holds this information, then link them by using the primary key.
Let me know if you have any questions about this. I hope this helps!
The user wants to add new fields in UI dynamically. This new field should get stored in database and they should be allowed to perform CRUD on it.
Now I can do this by specifying a XML but I wanted a better way where these new columns are searchable. Also the idea of firing ALTER statement and adding a new column seems wrong.
Can anyone help me with a design pattern on database server side of how to solve this problem?
This can be approached using a key value system. You create a table with the primary key column(s) of the table you want to annotate, a column for the name of the attribute, and a column for its value. When you user wants to add an attribute (say height) to the record of person 123 you add a row to the new table with the values (123, 'HEIGHT', '140.5').
In general you cast the values to TEXT for storage but if you know all the attributes will be numeric you can choose a different type for the value column. You can also (not recommended) use several different value columns depending on the type of the data.
This technique has the advantage that you don't need to modify the database structure to add new attributes and attributes are only stored for those records that have them. The disadvantage is that querying is not as straightforward as if the columns were all in the main data table.
There is no reason why a qualified business user should not be allowed to add a column to a table. It is less likely to cause a problem than just about anything else you can imagine including adding a new row to a table or changing. the value of a data element.
Using either of the methods described above do not avoid any risk; they are simply throwbacks to COBOL filler fields or unnecessary embellishments of the database function. The result can still be unnormalized and inaccurate.
These same business persons add columns to spreadsheets and tables to Word documents without DBAs getting in their way.
Of course, just adding the column is the smallest part of getting an information system to work, but it is often the case that it is perceived to be an almost insurmountable barrier. It is in fact 5 min worth of work assuming you know where to put it. Adding a column to the proper table with the proper datatype is easy to do, easy to use, and has the best chance of encouraging data quality.
Find out what the maximum number of user-added fields will be and add them before hand. For example 'User1', 'User2', 'User3', 'User4'...etc. You can then enable the fields on the UI based on some configurable settings.
I am refactoring an old Oracle 10g schema to try to introduce some normalization. In one of the larger tables, there is a text field that has at most, 10-15 possible values. In my mind, it seems that this field is an example of unnecessary data duplication and should be extracted to a separate table.
After examining the data, I cannot find one relevant piece of information that could be associated with that text value. Basically, if I pulled that value out and put it into its own table, it would be the only field in that table. It exists today as more of a 'flag' field. Should I create a two-column table with a surrogate key, keep it as it is, or do something entirely different? Am I doing more harm than good by trying to minimize data duplication on this field?
You might save some space by extracting the column to a separate table. This is called a lookup table. It can give you a couple of other benefits:
You can declare a foreign key constraint to the lookup table, so you can rely on the column in the main table never having any value other than the 10-15 values you want.
It's easy to query for a concise list of all permitted values, by querying the lookup table. This can be faster than using SELECT DISTINCT on the main table's column. It also returns values that are permitted, but not currently used in the main table.
If you change a value in the lookup table, it automatically applies to all rows in the main table that reference it.
However, creating a lookup table with one column is not strictly normalization. You're just replacing one value with another. The attribute in the main table either already supports a normal form, or not.
Using surrogate keys (vs. natural keys) also has nothing to do with normalization. A lot of people make this mistake.
However, if you move other attributes into the lookup table, attributes that depend only on the lookup value and therefore would create repeating groups (violating 3NF) in the main table if you left them there, then that would be normalization.
If you want normalization break it out.
I think of these types of data in DBs as the equivalent of enums in C,C++,C#. Mostly you put them in the table as documentation.
I often have an ID, Name, Description, and auditing columns for them (eg modified by, modified date, create date, create by, active.) The description field is rarely used.
Example (some might say there are more than just 2)
Gender
ID Name Audit Columns...
1 Male
2 Female
Then in your contacts you would have a GenderID column which would link to this one.
Of course you don't "need" the table. You could have external documentation somewhere that says 1=Male, 2=Female -- but I think these tables serve to document a system.
If it's really a free-entry text field that's not re-used somewhere else in the database, and there's just a single field without repeated instances, I'd probably go ahead and leave it as it is. If you're determined to break it out I'd create a 'validation' table with a surrogate key and the text value, then put the surrogate key in the base table.
Share and enjoy.
Are these 10-15 values actually meaningful, or are they really just flags? If they're meaningful pieces of text and it seems wasteful to replicate them, then sure create a lookup table. But if they're just arbitrary flag values, then your new table will be nothing more than a mapping from one arbitrary value to another, and not terribly helpful.
A completely separate question is whether all or most of the rows in your big table even have a value for this column. If not, then indeed you have a good opportunity for normalization and can create a separate table linking the primary key from your base table with the flag value.
Edit: One thing. If there's some chance that one of these "flag" values is likely to be wholesale replaced with another value at some point in the future, that would be another good reason to create a table.
Say I'm mapping a simple object to a table that contains duplicate records and I want to allow duplicates in my code. I don't need to update/insert/delete on this table, only display the records.
Is there a way that I can put a fake (generated) ID column in my mapping file to trick NHibernate into thinking the rows are unique? Creating a composite key won't work because there could be duplicates across all of the columns.
If this isn't possible, what is the best way to get around this issue?
Thanks!
Edit: Query seemed to be the way to go
The NHibernate mapping makes the assumption that you're going to want to save changes, hence the requirement for an ID of some kind.
If you're allowed to modify the table, you could add an identity column (SQL Server naming - your database may differ) to autogenerate unique Ids - existing code should be unaffected.
If you're allowed to add to the database, but not to the table, you could try defining a view that includes a RowNumber synthetic (calculated) column, and using that as the data source to load from. Depending on your database vendor (and the products handling of views and indexes) this may face some performance issues.
The other alternative, which I've not tried, would be to map your class to a SQL query instead of a table. IIRC, NHibernate supports having named SQL queries in the mapping file, and you can use those as the "data source" instead of a table or view.
If you're data is read only one simple way we found was to wrapper the query in a view and build the entity off the view, and add a newguid() column, result is something like
SELECT NEWGUID() as ID, * FROM TABLE
ID then becomes your uniquer primary key. As stated above this is only useful for read-only views. As the ID has no relevance after the query.