I was wondering how to implement exclusive inheritance in SQlite. By doing simply
create table Class (id integer primary key);
create table Sub1(id integer primary key references Class(id));
create table Sub2(id integer primary key references Class(id));
I have simple inheritance which does not prevent a Class to be both Sub1 and Sub2. I am looking for a way to enforce that a Class cannot be both (and optionnally, enforce it to be at least one of them).
In theory this could be possible with checks, e.g. for Sub2, something like
create table Sub2(id integer primary key references Class(id)
check(not exists(select 1 from Sub1 where Sub1.id = id limit 1)));
but this has the drawback that it would require maintenance as subclasses are added, and also that it is not accepted by SQLite (subqueries prohibited in CHECK constraints). This does not work when the check is at the table level either.
EDIT
Found a similar question (and related answers) on SO here.
You could try to use triggers (http://www.sqlite.org/lang_createtrigger.html).
For instance, you could implement your needs by creating a trigger for the table Sub(n) that, when a record is inserted in Sub(n), checks that its primary key is not alread present in Class; if it is present than fails since this means that another record with the same primary key is already present in another Sub(k) table, otherwise it insert the (primary key of the) record in Class.
In this way, you can add tables corresponding to subclasses without modifying the code of the previous tables.
Related
So I am supposed to create this schema + relationships exactly the way this ERD depicts it. Here I only show the tables that I am having problems with:
So I am trying to make it one to one but for some reason, no matter what I change, I get one to many on whatever table has the foreign key.
This is my sql for these two tables.
CREATE TABLE lab4.factory(
factory_id INTEGER UNIQUE,
address VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY ( factory_id )
);
CREATE TABLE lab4.employee(
employee_id INTEGER UNIQUE,
employee_name VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
factory_id INTEGER REFERENCES lab4.factory(factory_id),
PRIMARY KEY ( employee_id )
);
Here I get the same thing. I am not getting the one to one relationship but one to many. Invoiceline is a weak entity.
And here is my code for the second image.
CREATE TABLE lab4.product(
product_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
product_name INTEGER NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE lab4.invoiceLine(
line_number INTEGER NOT NULL,
quantity INTEGER NOT NULL,
curr_price INTEGER NOT NULL,
inv_no INTEGER REFERENCES invoice,
product_id INTEGER REFERENCES lab4.product(product_id),
PRIMARY KEY ( inv_no, line_number )
);
I would appreciate any help. Thanks.
One-to-one isn't well represented as a first-class relationship type in standard SQL. Much like many-to-many, which is achieved using a connector table and two one-to-many relationships, there's no true "one to one" in SQL.
There are a couple of options:
Create an ordinary foreign key constraint ("one to many" style) and then add a UNIQUE constraint on the referring FK column. This means that no more than one of the referred-to values may appear in the referring column, making it one-to-one optional. This is a fairly simple and quite forgiving approach that works well.
Use a normal FK relationship that could model 1:m, and let your app ensure it's only ever 1:1 in practice. I do not recommend this, there's only a small write performance downside to adding the FK unique index and it helps ensure data validity, find app bugs, and avoid confusing someone else who needs to modify the schema later.
Create reciprocal foreign keys - possible only if your database supports deferrable foreign key constraints. This is a bit more complex to code, but allows you to implement one-to-one mandatory relationships. Each entity has a foreign key reference to the others' PK in a unique column. One or both of the constraints must be DEFERRABLE and either INITIALLY DEFERRED or used with a SET CONSTRAINTS call, since you must defer one of the constraint checks to set up the circular dependency. This is a fairly advanced technique that is not necessary for the vast majority of applications.
Use pre-commit triggers if your database supports them, so you can verify that when entity A is inserted exactly one entity B is also inserted and vice versa, with corresponding checks for updates and deletes. This can be slow and is usually unnecessary, plus many database systems don't support pre-commit triggers.
Setup
So here's a scenario which I'm finding is rather common once you decide to play with STI (Single Table Inheritance).
You have some base type with various subtypes.
Person < (Teacher,Student,Staff,etc)
User < (Member,Admin)
Member < (Buyer,Seller)
Vehicle < (Car,Boat,Plane)
etc.
There are two major approaches to modelling that in the database:
Single Table Inheritance
One big table with a type field and a bunch of nullable fields
Class Table Inheritance
One table per type with shared PK (FK'd from the children to the parent)
While there are several issues with STI, I do like how it manages to cut down on the number of joins you have to make, as well as some of the support in frameworks like Rails, but I am running into an issue on how to relate subclass-specific tables.
For example:
Certifications should only reference Teacher-Persons
Profiles should only reference Member-Users
WingInformation should be not be related to a car or boat (unless you are Batman maybe)
Advertisements are owned by Seller-Members not Buyer-Members
With CTI, these relationships are trivial - just slap a Foreign Key on the related table and you're done:
ALTER TABLE advertisements
ADD FOREIGN KEY (seller_id) REFERENCES sellers (id)
But with STI, the similar thing wouldn't capture the subtype restriction.
ALTER TABLE advertisements
ADD FOREIGN KEY (seller_id) REFERENCES members (id)
What I would like to see is something like:
* Does not work in most (all?) databases *
ALTER TABLE advertisements
ADD FOREIGN KEY (seller_id, 'seller') REFERENCES members (id, type)
All I have been able to find is a dirty hack requiring adding a computed column to the related table:
ALTER TABLE advertisements
ADD seller_type VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'seller'
ALTER TABLE advertisements
FOREIGN KEY (seller_id, seller-type) REFERENCES members (id, type)
This strikes me as odd (not to mention inelegant).
The real questions
Is there a RDBMS out there which will allow me to do this?
Is there a reason why this isn't even possible?
Is this just one more reason why NOT to use STI except in the most trivial of cases?
There's no standard way to declare a constant in the foreign key declaration. You have to name columns.
But you could force the column to have a fixed value, using one of the following methods:
Computed column
CHECK constraint
Trigger before INSERT/UPDATE to overwrite any user-supplied value with the default value.
I'm working with a legacy SQL Server database which has a core table with a bad primary key.
The key is of type NVARCHAR(50) and contains an application-generated string based on various things in the table. For obvious reasons, I'd like to replace this key with an auto-incrementing (identity) INT column.
This is a huge database and we're upgrading it piece-by-piece. We want to minimize the changes to tables that other components write to. I figured I could change the table without breaking anything by just:
Adding the new Id column to the table and making it nullable
Filling it with unique integers and making it NOT NULL
Dropping the existing primary key while ensuring there's a uniqueness constraint still on that column
Setting the new Id column to be the new primary key and identity
Item 3 is proving very painful. Because this is a core table, there are a lot of other tables with foreign key constraints on it. To drop the existing primary key, it seems I have to delete all these foreign key constraints and create them again afterwards.
Is there an easier way to do this or will I just have to script everything?
Afraid that is the bad news. We just got through a big project of doing the same type of thing, although our head DBA had a few tricks up his sleeve. You might look at something like this to get your scripts generated for the flipping of the switch:
I once did the same thing and basically used the process you describe. Except of course you have to first visit each other table and add new foreign key pointing to the new column in your base table
So the approach I used was
Add a new column with an auto incrementing integer in the base table, ensure it has a unique index on it (to be replaced later by the primary key)
For each foreign key relationship pointing to the base table add a new column in the child table. (note this can result in adding more than one column in the child table if more than one relationship)
For each instance of a key in the child table enter a value into the new foreign key field(s)
Replace your foreign key relationships such that the new column now serves
Make the new column in the base table the primary
Drop the old primary key in the base table and each old foreign key in the
children.
It is doable and not as hard as it might sound at first. The crux is a series of update statements for the children table of the nature
Update child_table
set new_column = (select new_primary from base)
where old_primary = old_foreign
is there anyway to create lets say pattern for primary key i.e. for table products such pattern would by p-1,p-2... p-n etc.
Thanks
Well, you can manually create and enforce that pattern into your application (or using triggers). A primary key just needs to be unique to work.
But I don't recommend it. In your sample, seems P-1 have a business meaning. And, if it belongs to your business realm, it can be changed. While most database have a UPDATE CASCADE equivalent, it doesn't change basic reason you shouldn't use that as key: it's information, not data.
I suggest you to create a field named ProductCode char(10) NOT NULL UNIQUE and maybe to fill it with P-00000001, P-00000002, and so on. Maybe you do prefer to use a varchar: this doesn't matter, as it must fulfill your business requirement. Create an Id INTEGER AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY field to use as primary key, as it doesn't never needs to be changed.
Let's say I have a table that represents a super class, students. And then I have N tables that represent subclasses of that object (athletes, musicians, etc). How can I express a constraint such that a student must be modeled in one (not more, not less) subclass?
Clarifications regarding comments:
This is being maintained manually, not through an ORM package.
The project this relates to sits atop SQL Server (but it would be nice to see a generic solution)
This may not have been the best example. There are a couple scenarios we can consider regarding subclassing, and I just happened to invent this student/athlete example.
A) In true object-oriented fashion, it's possible that the superclass can exist by itself and need not be modeled in any subclasses.
B) In real life, any object or student can have multiple roles.
C) The particular scenario I was trying to illustrate was requiring that every object be implemented in exactly one subclass. Think of the superclass as an abstract implementation, or just commonalities factored out of otherwise disparate object classes/instances.
Thanks to all for your input, especially Bill.
Each Student record will have a SubClass column (assume for the sake of argument it's a CHAR(1)). {A = Athlete, M=musician...}
Now create your Athlete and Musician tables. They should also have a SubClass column, but there should be a check constraint hard-coding the value for the type of table they represent. For example, you should put a default of 'A' and a CHECK constraint of 'A' for the SubClass column on the Athlete table.
Link your Musician and Athlete tables to the Student table using a COMPOSITE foreign key of StudentID AND Subclass. And you're done! Go enjoy a nice cup of coffee.
CREATE TABLE Student (
StudentID INT NOT NULL IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY,
SubClass CHAR(1) NOT NULL,
Name VARCHAR(200) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT UQ_Student UNIQUE (StudentID, SubClass)
);
CREATE TABLE Athlete (
StudentID INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
SubClass CHAR(1) NOT NULL,
Sport VARCHAR(200) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT CHK_Jock CHECK (SubClass = 'A'),
CONSTRAINT FK_Student_Athlete FOREIGN KEY (StudentID, Subclass) REFERENCES Student(StudentID, Subclass)
);
CREATE TABLE Musician (
StudentID INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
SubClass CHAR(1) NOT NULL,
Instrument VARCHAR(200) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT CHK_Band_Nerd CHECK (SubClass = 'M'),
CONSTRAINT FK_Student_Musician FOREIGN KEY (StudentID, Subclass) REFERENCES Student(StudentID, Subclass)
);
Here are a couple of possibilities. One is a CHECK in each table that the student_id does not appear in any of the other sister subtype tables. This is probably expensive and every time you need a new subtype, you need to modify the constraint in all the existing tables.
CREATE TABLE athletes (
student_id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
FOREIGN KEY (student_id) REFERENCES students(student_id),
CHECK (student_id NOT IN (SELECT student_id FROM musicians
UNION SELECT student_id FROM slackers
UNION ...))
);
edit: #JackPDouglas correctly points out that the above form of CHECK constraint is not supported by Microsoft SQL Server. Nor, in fact, is it valid per the SQL-99 standard to reference another table (see http://kb.askmonty.org/v/constraint_type-check-constraint).
SQL-99 defines a metadata object for multi-table constraints. This is called an ASSERTION, however I don't know any RDBMS that implements assertions.
Probably a better way is to make the primary key in the students table a compound primary key, the second column denotes a subtype. Then restrict that column in each child table to a single value corresponding to the subtype represented by the table. edit: no need to make the PK a compound key in child tables.
CREATE TABLE athletes (
student_id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
student_type CHAR(4) NOT NULL CHECK (student_type = 'ATHL'),
FOREIGN KEY (student_id, student_type) REFERENCES students(student_id, student_type)
);
Of course student_type could just as easily be an integer, I'm just showing it as a char for illustration purposes.
If you don't have support for CHECK constraints (e.g. MySQL), then you can do something similar in a trigger.
I read your followup about making sure a row exists in some subclass table for every row in the superclass table. I don't think there's a practical way to do this with SQL metadata and constraints. The only option I can suggest to meet this requirement is to use Single-Table Inheritance. Otherwise you need to rely on application code to enforce it.
edit: JackPDouglas also suggests using a design based on Class Table Inheritance. See his example or my examples of the similar technique here or here or here.
If you are interested in data modeling, in addition to object modeling, I suggest you look up "relational modeling generalization specialization" on the web.
There used to be some good resources out there that explains this kind of pattern quite well.
I hope those resources are still there.
Here's a simplified view of what I hope you'll find.
Before you begin designing a database, it's useful to come up with a conceptual data model that connects the values stored in the database back to the subject matter. Making a conceptual data model is really data analysis, not database design. Sometimes it's difficult to keep analysis and design separate.
One way of modeling data at the conceptual level is the Entity-Relationship (ER) model. There are well known patterns for modeling the specialization-generalization situation. Converting those ER patterns to SQL tables (called logical design) is pretty straightforward, although you do have to make some design choices.
The case you gave of a student having possibly several roles like musician probably doesn't illustrate the case you are interested in, if I read you right. You seem to be interested in the case where the subclasses are mutually exclusive. Perhaps the case where a vehicle might be an auto, a truck, or a motorcycle might be easier to discuss.
One difference you are likely to encounter is that the general table for the superclass doesn't really need the type code column. The type of a single superclass instance can be derived by the presence or absence of foreign keys in the various subclass tables. Whether it's smarter to include or omit the type code depends on how you intend to use the data.
interesting problem. Of course the FK constraints are there for the subtables so there has to be a student for those.
The main problem is trying to check as it is inserted. The student has to be inserted first so that you don't violate a FK constraint in a subtable so a trigger that does a check wouldn't work.
You could write an app that checks now and then if you are really concerned about this. I think the biggest fear though would be deletions. Someone could delete a subtable entry but not the student. You could have triggers to check when items are deleted from the subtables since that is probably the biggest problem.
I have a db with a table per subclass hierarchy like this as well. I use Hibernate and its mapped properly so it deletes everything automatically. If doing this by 'hand' then I would make sure to always delete the parent with proper cascades hehe :)
Thanks, Bill. You got me thinking...
The superclass table has a subclass code column. Each of the subclass tables has a foreign key constraint, as well as one that dictates that the id exist with a subset of the superclass table (where code = athlete).
The only missing part here is that it's possible to model a superclass without a subclass. Even if you make the code column mandatory, it could just be an empty join. That can be fixed by adding a constraint that the superclass's ids exist in a union of the ids in the subclass tables. Insertion gets a little hairy with these two constraints if constraints are enforced in the middle of transactions. That or just don't worry about unsubclassed objects.
Edit: Bleh, such a good sounding idea... But impeded by the fact that subqueries that refer to other tables aren't supported. At least not in SQL Server.
That can be fixed by adding a constraint that the superclass's ids exist in a union of
the ids in the subclass tables.
Depending on how much intelligence you want to put into your schema (and how much MS SQL Server lets you put there), you wouldn't actually need to do a union of the subclass tables, since you know that, if the id exists in any subclass table, it must exist in the same subclass as the one identified by the subclass code column.
I would add a Check Constraint possibly.
Create the ForeignKeys as Nullable.
Add a Check to make sure they aren't both null and to make sure they aren't both set.
CONSTRAINT [CK_HasOneForiegnKey] CHECK ((FK_First!= NULL OR FK_Second != NULL) AND NOT (FK_First != NULL AND FK_Second != NULL)).
I am not sure but I believe this would allow you to set only one key at a time.