Related
i have a three column table which none of the columns are unique. so I added an Id column to my table as uniqueidentifier and made it primary. Just One Quesion: If two rows with the same values in those columns will be added to the table, what happens to the second one? will it be added or not? How Can I avoid such things in my scenario?
If your three non-ID columns do not have a unique constraint, and are not part of the Primary Key, you can add multiple rows with the exact same values.
If you want to avoid duplicate rows, your best bet would be to apply a unique constraint on at least one or more of the three columns. If you can't do that for some reason, you should post your schema and where you think the problem is to get some more help with it.
If you can't use a unique constraint, one way to avoid duplicates would be: when you're going to insert a record, first check to see if the record already exists, and if it already exists, decide how you want to handle it.
If your goal is to enforce uniqueness across the three columns then you basically have a choice of two structures:
Create Table tbl_1
(
ColA int
,ColB varchar(32)
,ColC varchar(256)
,Primary Key (ColA, ColB, ColC)
)
GO
OR
Create Table tbl_2
(
ID int identity(1,1) Primary Key
,ColA int
,ColB varchar(32)
,ColC varchar(256)
,Unique (ColA, ColB, ColC)
)
GO
There are advantages to either technique, which is better depends on the nature of the data and your interactions with it. However in both structures the values in any given column can repeat but the combination of the three must be unique for each row.
On the other hand if you are just trying to set a PK on data which may or may not be unique then you can use structure 2 but without the unique constraint. In which case each row is uniquely identified by the ID column but the values of the other columns can repeat freely.
The second one will be added. You can avoid it by creating a unique constraint.
I would like to add an autoincrementing integer field called uid to an existing table assoc, but it doesn't look like I can do that unless it's a primary key.
I have fields local_id and remote_id which are the existing primary key pair, and I do that so that I can INSERT OR IGNORE INTO assoc so that I don't get duplicate primary keys, but if I have a pair of columns as a primary key, I can't seem to use them as an update (see other SO question).
Could anyone suggest how to restructure the table (and implement that restructuring using ALTER TABLE) so that I can get the behavior I need:
a single autoincrementing key, so I can use that for UPDATEs
a pair of fields local_id and remote_id so that the pair (local_id, remote_id) remains unique in the table
In this case, you could drop the primary key on your existing columns, create the new primary key integer autoincrementing column, then create a UNIQUE index on the other two columns.
Aha, I don't need to -- there's a builtin rowid column.
At work we have a big database with unique indexes instead of primary keys and all works fine.
I'm designing new database for a new project and I have a dilemma:
In DB theory, primary key is fundamental element, that's OK, but in REAL projects what are advantages and disadvantages of both?
What do you use in projects?
EDIT: ...and what about primary keys and replication on MS SQL server?
What is a unique index?
A unique index on a column is an index on that column that also enforces the constraint that you cannot have two equal values in that column in two different rows. Example:
CREATE TABLE table1 (foo int, bar int);
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ux_table1_foo ON table1(foo); -- Create unique index on foo.
INSERT INTO table1 (foo, bar) VALUES (1, 2); -- OK
INSERT INTO table1 (foo, bar) VALUES (2, 2); -- OK
INSERT INTO table1 (foo, bar) VALUES (3, 1); -- OK
INSERT INTO table1 (foo, bar) VALUES (1, 4); -- Fails!
Duplicate entry '1' for key 'ux_table1_foo'
The last insert fails because it violates the unique index on column foo when it tries to insert the value 1 into this column for a second time.
In MySQL a unique constraint allows multiple NULLs.
It is possible to make a unique index on mutiple columns.
Primary key versus unique index
Things that are the same:
A primary key implies a unique index.
Things that are different:
A primary key also implies NOT NULL, but a unique index can be nullable.
There can be only one primary key, but there can be multiple unique indexes.
If there is no clustered index defined then the primary key will be the clustered index.
You can see it like this:
A Primary Key IS Unique
A Unique value doesn't have to be the Representaion of the Element
Meaning?; Well a primary key is used to identify the element, if you have a "Person" you would like to have a Personal Identification Number ( SSN or such ) which is Primary to your Person.
On the other hand, the person might have an e-mail which is unique, but doensn't identify the person.
I always have Primary Keys, even in relationship tables ( the mid-table / connection table ) I might have them. Why? Well I like to follow a standard when coding, if the "Person" has an identifier, the Car has an identifier, well, then the Person -> Car should have an identifier as well!
Foreign keys work with unique constraints as well as primary keys. From Books Online:
A FOREIGN KEY constraint does not have
to be linked only to a PRIMARY KEY
constraint in another table; it can
also be defined to reference the
columns of a UNIQUE constraint in
another table
For transactional replication, you need the primary key. From Books Online:
Tables published for transactional
replication must have a primary key.
If a table is in a transactional
replication publication, you cannot
disable any indexes that are
associated with primary key columns.
These indexes are required by
replication. To disable an index, you
must first drop the table from the
publication.
Both answers are for SQL Server 2005.
The choice of when to use a surrogate primary key as opposed to a natural key is tricky. Answers such as, always or never, are rarely useful. I find that it depends on the situation.
As an example, I have the following tables:
CREATE TABLE toll_booths (
id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
...
UNIQUE(name)
)
CREATE TABLE cars (
vin VARCHAR(17) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
license_plate VARCHAR(10) NOT NULL,
...
UNIQUE(license_plate)
)
CREATE TABLE drive_through (
id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
toll_booth_id INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES toll_booths(id),
vin VARCHAR(17) NOT NULL REFERENCES cars(vin),
at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP NOT NULL,
amount NUMERIC(10,4) NOT NULL,
...
UNIQUE(toll_booth_id, vin)
)
We have two entity tables (toll_booths and cars) and a transaction table (drive_through). The toll_booth table uses a surrogate key because it has no natural attribute that is not guaranteed to change (the name can easily be changed). The cars table uses a natural primary key because it has a non-changing unique identifier (vin). The drive_through transaction table uses a surrogate key for easy identification, but also has a unique constraint on the attributes that are guaranteed to be unique at the time the record is inserted.
http://database-programmer.blogspot.com has some great articles on this particular subject.
There are no disadvantages of primary keys.
To add just some information to #MrWiggles and #Peter Parker answers, when table doesn't have primary key for example you won't be able to edit data in some applications (they will end up saying sth like cannot edit / delete data without primary key). Postgresql allows multiple NULL values to be in UNIQUE column, PRIMARY KEY doesn't allow NULLs. Also some ORM that generate code may have some problems with tables without primary keys.
UPDATE:
As far as I know it is not possible to replicate tables without primary keys in MSSQL, at least without problems (details).
If something is a primary key, depending on your DB engine, the entire table gets sorted by the primary key. This means that lookups are much faster on the primary key because it doesn't have to do any dereferencing as it has to do with any other kind of index. Besides that, it's just theory.
In addition to what the other answers have said, some databases and systems may require a primary to be present. One situation comes to mind; when using enterprise replication with Informix a PK must be present for a table to participate in replication.
As long as you do not allow NULL for a value, they should be handled the same, but the value NULL is handled differently on databases(AFAIK MS-SQL do not allow more than one(1) NULL value, mySQL and Oracle allow this, if a column is UNIQUE)
So you must define this column NOT NULL UNIQUE INDEX
There is no such thing as a primary key in relational data theory, so your question has to be answered on the practical level.
Unique indexes are not part of the SQL standard. The particular implementation of a DBMS will determine what are the consequences of declaring a unique index.
In Oracle, declaring a primary key will result in a unique index being created on your behalf, so the question is almost moot. I can't tell you about other DBMS products.
I favor declaring a primary key. This has the effect of forbidding NULLs in the key column(s) as well as forbidding duplicates. I also favor declaring REFERENCES constraints to enforce entity integrity. In many cases, declaring an index on the coulmn(s) of a foreign key will speed up joins. This kind of index should in general not be unique.
There are some disadvantages of CLUSTERED INDEXES vs UNIQUE INDEXES.
As already stated, a CLUSTERED INDEX physically orders the data in the table.
This mean that when you have a lot if inserts or deletes on a table containing a clustered index, everytime (well, almost, depending on your fill factor) you change the data, the physical table needs to be updated to stay sorted.
In relative small tables, this is fine, but when getting to tables that have GB's worth of data, and insertrs/deletes affect the sorting, you will run into problems.
I almost never create a table without a numeric primary key. If there is also a natural key that should be unique, I also put a unique index on it. Joins are faster on integers than multicolumn natural keys, data only needs to change in one place (natural keys tend to need to be updated which is a bad thing when it is in primary key - foreign key relationships). If you are going to need replication use a GUID instead of an integer, but for the most part I prefer a key that is user readable especially if they need to see it to distinguish between John Smith and John Smith.
The few times I don't create a surrogate key are when I have a joining table that is involved in a many-to-many relationship. In this case I declare both fields as the primary key.
My understanding is that a primary key and a unique index with a not‑null constraint, are the same (*); and I suppose one choose one or the other depending on what the specification explicitly states or implies (a matter of what you want to express and explicitly enforce). If it requires uniqueness and not‑null, then make it a primary key. If it just happens all parts of a unique index are not‑null without any requirement for that, then just make it a unique index.
The sole remaining difference is, you may have multiple not‑null unique indexes, while you can't have multiple primary keys.
(*) Excepting a practical difference: a primary key can be the default unique key for some operations, like defining a foreign key. Ex. if one define a foreign key referencing a table and does not provide the column name, if the referenced table has a primary key, then the primary key will be the referenced column. Otherwise, the the referenced column will have to be named explicitly.
Others here have mentioned DB replication, but I don't know about it.
Unique Index can have one NULL value. It creates NON-CLUSTERED INDEX.
Primary Key cannot contain NULL value. It creates CLUSTERED INDEX.
In MSSQL, Primary keys should be monotonically increasing for best performance on the clustered index. Therefore an integer with identity insert is better than any natural key that might not be monotonically increasing.
If it were up to me...
You need to satisfy the requirements of the database and of your applications.
Adding an auto-incrementing integer or long id column to every table to serve as the primary key takes care of the database requirements.
You would then add at least one other unique index to the table for use by your application. This would be the index on employee_id, or account_id, or customer_id, etc. If possible, this index should not be a composite index.
I would favor indices on several fields individually over composite indices. The database will use the single field indices whenever the where clause includes those fields, but it will only use a composite when you provide the fields in exactly the correct order - meaning it can't use the second field in a composite index unless you provide both the first and second in your where clause.
I am all for using calculated or Function type indices - and would recommend using them over composite indices. It makes it very easy to use the function index by using the same function in your where clause.
This takes care of your application requirements.
It is highly likely that other non-primary indices are actually mappings of that indexes key value to a primary key value, not rowid()'s. This allows for physical sorting operations and deletes to occur without having to recreate these indices.
At work we have a big database with unique indexes instead of primary keys and all works fine.
I'm designing new database for a new project and I have a dilemma:
In DB theory, primary key is fundamental element, that's OK, but in REAL projects what are advantages and disadvantages of both?
What do you use in projects?
EDIT: ...and what about primary keys and replication on MS SQL server?
What is a unique index?
A unique index on a column is an index on that column that also enforces the constraint that you cannot have two equal values in that column in two different rows. Example:
CREATE TABLE table1 (foo int, bar int);
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX ux_table1_foo ON table1(foo); -- Create unique index on foo.
INSERT INTO table1 (foo, bar) VALUES (1, 2); -- OK
INSERT INTO table1 (foo, bar) VALUES (2, 2); -- OK
INSERT INTO table1 (foo, bar) VALUES (3, 1); -- OK
INSERT INTO table1 (foo, bar) VALUES (1, 4); -- Fails!
Duplicate entry '1' for key 'ux_table1_foo'
The last insert fails because it violates the unique index on column foo when it tries to insert the value 1 into this column for a second time.
In MySQL a unique constraint allows multiple NULLs.
It is possible to make a unique index on mutiple columns.
Primary key versus unique index
Things that are the same:
A primary key implies a unique index.
Things that are different:
A primary key also implies NOT NULL, but a unique index can be nullable.
There can be only one primary key, but there can be multiple unique indexes.
If there is no clustered index defined then the primary key will be the clustered index.
You can see it like this:
A Primary Key IS Unique
A Unique value doesn't have to be the Representaion of the Element
Meaning?; Well a primary key is used to identify the element, if you have a "Person" you would like to have a Personal Identification Number ( SSN or such ) which is Primary to your Person.
On the other hand, the person might have an e-mail which is unique, but doensn't identify the person.
I always have Primary Keys, even in relationship tables ( the mid-table / connection table ) I might have them. Why? Well I like to follow a standard when coding, if the "Person" has an identifier, the Car has an identifier, well, then the Person -> Car should have an identifier as well!
Foreign keys work with unique constraints as well as primary keys. From Books Online:
A FOREIGN KEY constraint does not have
to be linked only to a PRIMARY KEY
constraint in another table; it can
also be defined to reference the
columns of a UNIQUE constraint in
another table
For transactional replication, you need the primary key. From Books Online:
Tables published for transactional
replication must have a primary key.
If a table is in a transactional
replication publication, you cannot
disable any indexes that are
associated with primary key columns.
These indexes are required by
replication. To disable an index, you
must first drop the table from the
publication.
Both answers are for SQL Server 2005.
The choice of when to use a surrogate primary key as opposed to a natural key is tricky. Answers such as, always or never, are rarely useful. I find that it depends on the situation.
As an example, I have the following tables:
CREATE TABLE toll_booths (
id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
...
UNIQUE(name)
)
CREATE TABLE cars (
vin VARCHAR(17) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
license_plate VARCHAR(10) NOT NULL,
...
UNIQUE(license_plate)
)
CREATE TABLE drive_through (
id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
toll_booth_id INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES toll_booths(id),
vin VARCHAR(17) NOT NULL REFERENCES cars(vin),
at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP NOT NULL,
amount NUMERIC(10,4) NOT NULL,
...
UNIQUE(toll_booth_id, vin)
)
We have two entity tables (toll_booths and cars) and a transaction table (drive_through). The toll_booth table uses a surrogate key because it has no natural attribute that is not guaranteed to change (the name can easily be changed). The cars table uses a natural primary key because it has a non-changing unique identifier (vin). The drive_through transaction table uses a surrogate key for easy identification, but also has a unique constraint on the attributes that are guaranteed to be unique at the time the record is inserted.
http://database-programmer.blogspot.com has some great articles on this particular subject.
There are no disadvantages of primary keys.
To add just some information to #MrWiggles and #Peter Parker answers, when table doesn't have primary key for example you won't be able to edit data in some applications (they will end up saying sth like cannot edit / delete data without primary key). Postgresql allows multiple NULL values to be in UNIQUE column, PRIMARY KEY doesn't allow NULLs. Also some ORM that generate code may have some problems with tables without primary keys.
UPDATE:
As far as I know it is not possible to replicate tables without primary keys in MSSQL, at least without problems (details).
If something is a primary key, depending on your DB engine, the entire table gets sorted by the primary key. This means that lookups are much faster on the primary key because it doesn't have to do any dereferencing as it has to do with any other kind of index. Besides that, it's just theory.
In addition to what the other answers have said, some databases and systems may require a primary to be present. One situation comes to mind; when using enterprise replication with Informix a PK must be present for a table to participate in replication.
As long as you do not allow NULL for a value, they should be handled the same, but the value NULL is handled differently on databases(AFAIK MS-SQL do not allow more than one(1) NULL value, mySQL and Oracle allow this, if a column is UNIQUE)
So you must define this column NOT NULL UNIQUE INDEX
There is no such thing as a primary key in relational data theory, so your question has to be answered on the practical level.
Unique indexes are not part of the SQL standard. The particular implementation of a DBMS will determine what are the consequences of declaring a unique index.
In Oracle, declaring a primary key will result in a unique index being created on your behalf, so the question is almost moot. I can't tell you about other DBMS products.
I favor declaring a primary key. This has the effect of forbidding NULLs in the key column(s) as well as forbidding duplicates. I also favor declaring REFERENCES constraints to enforce entity integrity. In many cases, declaring an index on the coulmn(s) of a foreign key will speed up joins. This kind of index should in general not be unique.
There are some disadvantages of CLUSTERED INDEXES vs UNIQUE INDEXES.
As already stated, a CLUSTERED INDEX physically orders the data in the table.
This mean that when you have a lot if inserts or deletes on a table containing a clustered index, everytime (well, almost, depending on your fill factor) you change the data, the physical table needs to be updated to stay sorted.
In relative small tables, this is fine, but when getting to tables that have GB's worth of data, and insertrs/deletes affect the sorting, you will run into problems.
I almost never create a table without a numeric primary key. If there is also a natural key that should be unique, I also put a unique index on it. Joins are faster on integers than multicolumn natural keys, data only needs to change in one place (natural keys tend to need to be updated which is a bad thing when it is in primary key - foreign key relationships). If you are going to need replication use a GUID instead of an integer, but for the most part I prefer a key that is user readable especially if they need to see it to distinguish between John Smith and John Smith.
The few times I don't create a surrogate key are when I have a joining table that is involved in a many-to-many relationship. In this case I declare both fields as the primary key.
My understanding is that a primary key and a unique index with a not‑null constraint, are the same (*); and I suppose one choose one or the other depending on what the specification explicitly states or implies (a matter of what you want to express and explicitly enforce). If it requires uniqueness and not‑null, then make it a primary key. If it just happens all parts of a unique index are not‑null without any requirement for that, then just make it a unique index.
The sole remaining difference is, you may have multiple not‑null unique indexes, while you can't have multiple primary keys.
(*) Excepting a practical difference: a primary key can be the default unique key for some operations, like defining a foreign key. Ex. if one define a foreign key referencing a table and does not provide the column name, if the referenced table has a primary key, then the primary key will be the referenced column. Otherwise, the the referenced column will have to be named explicitly.
Others here have mentioned DB replication, but I don't know about it.
Unique Index can have one NULL value. It creates NON-CLUSTERED INDEX.
Primary Key cannot contain NULL value. It creates CLUSTERED INDEX.
In MSSQL, Primary keys should be monotonically increasing for best performance on the clustered index. Therefore an integer with identity insert is better than any natural key that might not be monotonically increasing.
If it were up to me...
You need to satisfy the requirements of the database and of your applications.
Adding an auto-incrementing integer or long id column to every table to serve as the primary key takes care of the database requirements.
You would then add at least one other unique index to the table for use by your application. This would be the index on employee_id, or account_id, or customer_id, etc. If possible, this index should not be a composite index.
I would favor indices on several fields individually over composite indices. The database will use the single field indices whenever the where clause includes those fields, but it will only use a composite when you provide the fields in exactly the correct order - meaning it can't use the second field in a composite index unless you provide both the first and second in your where clause.
I am all for using calculated or Function type indices - and would recommend using them over composite indices. It makes it very easy to use the function index by using the same function in your where clause.
This takes care of your application requirements.
It is highly likely that other non-primary indices are actually mappings of that indexes key value to a primary key value, not rowid()'s. This allows for physical sorting operations and deletes to occur without having to recreate these indices.
I am using SQL Server 2005. I want to constrain the values in a column to be unique, while allowing NULLS.
My current solution involves a unique index on a view like so:
CREATE VIEW vw_unq WITH SCHEMABINDING AS
SELECT Column1
FROM MyTable
WHERE Column1 IS NOT NULL
CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX unq_idx ON vw_unq (Column1)
Any better ideas?
Using SQL Server 2008, you can create a filtered index.
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX AK_MyTable_Column1 ON MyTable (Column1) WHERE Column1 IS NOT NULL
Another option is a trigger to check uniqueness, but this could affect performance.
The calculated column trick is widely known as a "nullbuster"; my notes credit Steve Kass:
CREATE TABLE dupNulls (
pk int identity(1,1) primary key,
X int NULL,
nullbuster as (case when X is null then pk else 0 end),
CONSTRAINT dupNulls_uqX UNIQUE (X,nullbuster)
)
Pretty sure you can't do that, as it violates the purpose of uniques.
However, this person seems to have a decent work around:
http://sqlservercodebook.blogspot.com/2008/04/multiple-null-values-in-unique-index-in.html
It is possible to use filter predicates to specify which rows to include in the index.
From the documentation:
WHERE <filter_predicate> Creates a filtered index by specifying which
rows to include in the index. The filtered index must be a
nonclustered index on a table. Creates filtered statistics for the
data rows in the filtered index.
Example:
CREATE TABLE Table1 (
NullableCol int NULL
)
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX IX_Table1 ON Table1 (NullableCol) WHERE NullableCol IS NOT NULL;
Strictly speaking, a unique nullable column (or set of columns) can be NULL (or a record of NULLs) only once, since having the same value (and this includes NULL) more than once obviously violates the unique constraint.
However, that doesn't mean the concept of "unique nullable columns" is valid; to actually implement it in any relational database we just have to bear in mind that this kind of databases are meant to be normalized to properly work, and normalization usually involves the addition of several (non-entity) extra tables to establish relationships between the entities.
Let's work a basic example considering only one "unique nullable column", it's easy to expand it to more such columns.
Suppose we the information represented by a table like this:
create table the_entity_incorrect
(
id integer,
uniqnull integer null, /* we want this to be "unique and nullable" */
primary key (id)
);
We can do it by putting uniqnull apart and adding a second table to establish a relationship between uniqnull values and the_entity (rather than having uniqnull "inside" the_entity):
create table the_entity
(
id integer,
primary key(id)
);
create table the_relation
(
the_entity_id integer not null,
uniqnull integer not null,
unique(the_entity_id),
unique(uniqnull),
/* primary key can be both or either of the_entity_id or uniqnull */
primary key (the_entity_id, uniqnull),
foreign key (the_entity_id) references the_entity(id)
);
To associate a value of uniqnull to a row in the_entity we need to also add a row in the_relation.
For rows in the_entity were no uniqnull values are associated (i.e. for the ones we would put NULL in the_entity_incorrect) we simply do not add a row in the_relation.
Note that values for uniqnull will be unique for all the_relation, and also notice that for each value in the_entity there can be at most one value in the_relation, since the primary and foreign keys on it enforce this.
Then, if a value of 5 for uniqnull is to be associated with an the_entity id of 3, we need to:
start transaction;
insert into the_entity (id) values (3);
insert into the_relation (the_entity_id, uniqnull) values (3, 5);
commit;
And, if an id value of 10 for the_entity has no uniqnull counterpart, we only do:
start transaction;
insert into the_entity (id) values (10);
commit;
To denormalize this information and obtain the data a table like the_entity_incorrect would hold, we need to:
select
id, uniqnull
from
the_entity left outer join the_relation
on
the_entity.id = the_relation.the_entity_id
;
The "left outer join" operator ensures all rows from the_entity will appear in the result, putting NULL in the uniqnull column when no matching columns are present in the_relation.
Remember, any effort spent for some days (or weeks or months) in designing a well normalized database (and the corresponding denormalizing views and procedures) will save you years (or decades) of pain and wasted resources.