Please check the tables below for a simplified version of my problem:
Table Boys
BoyId
BoyName
...
Table Girls
GirlId
GirlName
Table Toys
ToyId
ToyName
ToyOwnerBoyOrGirl ( The toy could be owned by a boy or a girl)
ToyOwnerId
I created two constraints:
1) ToyOwnerId is a foreign key of the Primary Key Boys.BoyId
2) ToyOwnerId is a foreign key of the Primary Key Girls.GirlId
My purpose is to tell the database that ToyOwnerId will always be one of these Ids
My problem:
When I tried to insert a new Toy with an id of a Boy, I got an error that there is a foreign key conflict in the Girls constraint.
Is this a bag design or I can still use the same design with a fix ?
I think you should combine the boys and girls table to one table called children. It would have sex column that would have an M or F. That will simplify things.
You should simply have both IDs in your toys table plus a check constraint to ensure that always either a boy or a girl is the owner.
Table Toys
ToyId
ToyName
ToyOwnerBoyId
ToyOwnerGirlId
CONSTRAINT chkToyOwner CHECK
(
(ToyOwnerBoyId is null and ToyOwnerGirlId is not null)
OR
(ToyOwnerBoyId is not null and ToyOwnerGirlId is null)
)
As to selecting the data, use outer joins:
select ...
from toys
left join boys on boys.boyid = toys.toyownerboyid
left join girls on girls.girlid = toys.toyownergirlid;
To find toys owned by boys:
select ...
from toys
where toyownerboyid is not null;
It looks like a bad design. Why don't have one table for all children and some mark - is it boy or girl? Also I really doubt you need ToyOwnerBoyOrGirl field - as it can be easily obtained by join from toys to owners.
Consider following scheme:
Table Children
ID
Name
Is_Boy
Table Toys
ID
Name
Owner_ID
In this case you need just foreign key from toys to owners, and other tasks you might encounter will be much more simplier to solve.
EDIT: As per OP's comment - Boys and Girls tables are totally different.
So, in this case you still can have table Children (let's use previous terminology) as a "common" table for Boys and Girls.
Something like:
Table Children
ID
Table_Name ('Boys' or 'Girls' here)
Record_ID (ID from Boys or Girls respectively)
...maybe some common fields from boys and girls tables here...
Table Boys
ID
Child_ID
...the rest of fields
Table Girls
ID
Child_ID
...the rest of fields
It's a bad design, given the fact one column set (one column, being ToyOwnerId) is referred to different tables, both as a one-column FK to a one-column PK. The obvious question would then be : how come you have different tables with a similar PK ? And I see you have answered that already, by means of replying the data columns of the respective tables are different. That is a good reason to have different tables. But, then, how to solve the FK issue ? (I understood that these "boys" and "girls" are not the real entities). What you can do, is make a BoyToy and a GirlToy table. If you have very few data columns (data = non-PK and non-FK) then that is a perfect solution. No ?
Related
What is the appropriate way of modeling a friend-to-friend relationship in a relational database? I'll detail out what I mean by a friend-to-friend relationship below.
friend-to-friend relationship
Assuming we have a table with persons. These persons can be friends with each other. Being a friend means that a person and another person are connected through a relationship that only includes those two persons.
My best, not satisfactory, idea so far
A table containing persons
A table containing the relationships
A table containing the many-to-many-relationship between persons and
relationships
As in the image below.
proposed data model
This seems fine from a data-modeling perspective, but when writing a SQL query that would check whether two given person_ids are friends or not, the query becomes rather complex, which makes me think this is not the appropriate way to do it.
i would recommend a table with two person_id-columns and maybe a relationshiptype-id for different relationships
create table individuals (
individual_id int primary key,
full_name varchar(255)
);
create table relationships (
from_individual_id int references individuals(individual_id),
type varchar(255) check (type in ('FRIEND OF')), -- should be a lookup table
to_individual_id int references individuals(individual_id),
primary key (from_individual_id, to_individual_id, type),
check (from_individual_id <> to_individual_id)
);
I can think that you are my friend, but you don't think I am your friend...
But generally "from" thinks "to" is a friend and vice-versa, so you'll to add the reverse relationship as another row
I would go for [Friend - Friend - Relationship] link table.
[Friend]---[Link_table]---[Relationship]
|
[Friend]
:)
EDIT:
Where for example [Table]: columns...
[Friend]: PK_Friend, Name, LastName
[Link]: PK_Link, PK_Friend1, PK_Friend2, PK_RelationShip
[RelationShip]: PK_RelationShip, RelationShipDescription
I have a DB about renting cars.
I created a CarModels table (ModelID as PK).
I want to create a second table with the same primary key as CarModels have.
This table only contains the number of times this Model was searched on my website.
So lets say you visit my website, you can check a list that contains common cars rented.
"Most popular Cars" table.
It's not about One-to-One relationship, that's for sure.
Is there any SQL code to connect two Primary keys together ?
select m.ModelID, m.Field1, m.Field2,
t.TimesSearched
from CarModels m
left outer join Table2 t on m.ModelID = t.ModelID
but why not simply add the field TimesSearched to table CarModels ?
Then you dont need another table
Easiest is to just use a new primary key on the new table with a foreign key to the CarModels table, like [CarModelID] INT NOT NULL. You can put an index and a unique constraint on the FK.
If you reeeealy want them to be the same, you can jump through a bunch of hoops that will make your life Hell, like creating the table from the CarModels table, then setting that field as the primary key, then whenever you add a new CarModel you'll have to create a trigger that will SET IDENTITY_INSERT ON so you can add the new one, and remember to SET IDENTITY_INSERT OFF when you're done.
Personally, I'd create a CarsSearched table that holds ThisUser selected ThisCarModel on ThisDate: then you can start doing some fun data analysis like [are some cars more popular in certain zip codes or certain times of year?], or [this company rents three cars every year in March, so I'll send them a coupon in January].
You are not extending anything (modifying the actual model of the table). You simply need to make INNER JOIN of the table linking with the primary keys being equal.
It could be outer join as it has been suggested but if it's 1:1 like you said ( the second table with have exact same keys - I assume all of them), inner will be enough as both tables would have the same set of same prim keys.
As a bonus, it will also produce fewer rows if you didn't match all keys as a nice reminder if you fail to match all PKs.
That being said, do you have a strong reason why not to keep the said number in the same table? You are basically modeling 1:1 relationship for 1 extra column (and small one too, by data type)
You could extend (now this is extending tables model) with the additional attribute of integer that keeps that number for you.
Later is preferred for simplicity and lower query times.
I may be total standard here, but I have a table with duplicate values across the records i.e. People and HairColour. What I need to do is create another table which contains all the distinct HairColour values in the Group of Person records.
i.e.
Name HairColour
--------------------
Sam Ginger
Julie Brown
Peter Brown
Caroline Blond
Andrew Blond
My Person feature view needs to list out the distinct HairColours:
HairColour Ginger
HairColour Brown
HairColour Blond
Against each of these Person feature rows I record the Recommended Products.
It is a bit weird from a Relational perspective, but there are reasons. I could build up the Person Feature"View as I add Person records using say an INSTEAD OF INSERT trigger on the View. But it gets messy. An alternative is just to have Person Feature as a View based on a SELECT DISTINCT of the Person table and then link Recommended Products to this. But I have no Primary Key on the Person Feature View since it is a SELECT DISTINCT View. I will not be updating this View. Also one would need to think about how to deal with the Person Recommendation records when a Person Feature record disappeared since since it is not based on a physical table.
Any thoughts on this please?
Edit
I have a table of People with duplicate values for HairColour across a number of records, e.g., more than one person has blond hair. I need to create a table or view that represents a distinct list of "HairColour" records as above. Against each of these "HairColour" records I need link another table called Product Recommendation. The main issue to start with is creating this distinct list of records. Should it be a table or could it be a View based on a SELECT DISTINCT query?
So Person >- HairColour (distinct Table or Distinct View) -< Product Recommendation.
If HairColour needs to be a table then I need to make sure it has the correct records in it every time a Person record is added. Obviously using a View would do this automatically, but I am unsure whether you can can hang another table off a View.
If I understand correctly, you need a table with a primary key that lists the distinct hair colors that are found in a different table.
CREATE TABLE Haircolour(
ID INT IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
Colour VARCHAR(50) NULL
CONSTRAINT [PK_Haircolour] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (ID ASC))
Then insert your records. If this is querying a table called "Person" it will look like this:
INSERT INTO Haircolour (Colour) SELECT DISTINCT HairColour FROM Person
Does this do what you are looking for?
UPDATE:
Your most recent Edit shows that you are looking for a many-to-many relationship between the Person and ProductRecommendation tables, with the HairColour table functioning as a cross reference table.
As ErikE points out, this is a good opportunity to normalize your data.
Create the HairColour table as described above.
Populate it from whatever source you like, for example the insert statement above.
Modify both the Person and the ProductRecommendation tables to include a HairColourID field, which is an integer foreign key that points to the PK field of the HairColour table.
Update Person.HairColourID to point to the color mentioned in the Person.HairColour column.
Drop the Person.HairColour column.
This involves giving up the ability to put free form new color names into the Person table. Any new colors must now be added to the HairColour table; those are the only colors that are available.
The foreign key constraint enforces the list of available colors. This is a good thing. Referential integrity keeps your data clean and prevents a lot of unexpected errors.
You can now confidently build your ProductRecommendation table on a data structure that will carry some weight.
Are you simply looking for a View of distinct hair colors?
CREATE VIEW YourViewName AS
SELECT DISTINCT HairColour
FROM YourTableName
You can query this view like a table:
SELECT 'HairColour: ' + HairColour
FROM YourViewName
If you are trying to create a new (temp) table, the syntax would look like:
SELECT Name, HairColour
INTO #Temp
FROM YourTableName
GROUP BY Name, HairColour
Here the GROUP BY is doing the same work that a DISTINCT keyword would do in the select list. This will create a temp table with unique combinations of "Name" and "HairColour".
You need to clear up a few things in your post (or in your mind) first:
1) What are the objectives? Forget about tables and views and whatever. Phrase your objectives as an ordinary person would. For example, from what I could gather from your post:
"My objective is to have a list of recommended products based on each person's hair colour."
2) Once you have that, check what data you have. I assume you have a "Persons" table, with the columns "Name" and "HairColour". You check your data and ask yourself: "Do I need any more data to reach my objective?" Based on your post I say yes: you also need a "matching" between hair colours and product ids. This must be provided, or programmed by you. There is no automatic method of saying for example "brown means products X,Y,Z.
3) After you have all the needed data, you can ask: Can I perform a query that will return a close approximation of my objective?
See for example this fiddle:
http://sqlfiddle.com/#!2/fda0d6/1
I have also defined your "Select distinct" view, but I fail to see where it will be used. Your objectives (as defined in your post) do not make this clear. If you provide a thorough list in Recommended_Products_HairColour you do not need a distinct view. The JOIN operation takes care of your "missing colors" (namely "Green" in my example)
4) When you have the query, you can follow up with: Do I need it in a different format? Is this a job for the query or the application? etc. But that's a different question I think.
I'm dealing with this situation. I've got three tables in SQL SERVER called Movies, Series and Orders.
Orders has an ItemId where this could be a MovieId (Movies PK) or SerieId (Series PK). I mean, in Orders table could have records where are from movies of series.
I don't know how to maintain this relationship or which could be the best way to implement it. Until I know, I only can create 1 to 1 or 1 to many relationships between 2 tables, not for 3.
Thanks in advance.
In this case I think it would be better to store Movies and Series in the same table with the common attributes incl. a column which indicates the type (Movie or Serie) and then have the additional attributes in seperate tables (if you want to normalize) or even in the same table (in order to avoid joins).
You should learn about implement table inheritance in sql-server.
Do you have a product and this product may be a Movie or a Serie.
In linked sample a person may be a student or a teacher.
The best way is:
create a generic table for movies and series with the fields that both entities should share (like ItemId).
create a table for movies that references the table created on step 1, containing the fields that must be compiled only for movies. This new table will be in relation one-to-one with the previous one.
same thing for series.
create the orders table and set ItemId foreign key to point to the ItemId primary key of the table created on step 1.
I have a table which has employee relationship defined within itself.
i.e.
EmpID Name SeniorId
-----------------------
1 A NULL
2 B 1
3 C 1
4 D 3
and so on...
Where Senior ID is a foreign key whose primary key table is same with refrence column EmpId
I want to clear all rows from this table without removing any constraint. How can i do this?
Deletion need to be performed like this
4, 3 , 2 , 1
How can I do this
EDIT:
Jhonny's Answer is working for me but which of the answers are more efficient.
I don't know if I am missing something, but maybe you can try this.
UPDATE employee SET SeniorID = NULL
DELETE FROM employee
If the table is very large (cardinality of millions), and there is no need to log the DELETE transactions, dropping the constraint and TRUNCATEing and recreating constraints is by far the most efficient way. Also, if there are foreign keys in other tables (and in this particular table design it would seem to be so), those rows will all have to be deleted first in all cases, as well.
Normalization says nothing about recursive/hierarchical/tree relationships, so I believe that is a red herring in your reply to DVK's suggestion to split this into its own table - it certainly is viable to make a vertical partition of this table already and also to consider whether you can take advantage of that to get any of the other benefits I list below. As DVK alludes to, in this particular design, I have often seen a separate link table to record self-relationships and other kinds of relationships. This has numerous benefits:
have many to many up AND down instead of many-to-one (uncommon, but potentially useful)
track different types of direct relationships - manager, mentor, assistant, payroll approver, expense approver, technical report-to - with rows in the relationship and relationship type tables instead of new columns in the employee table
track changing hierarchies in a temporally consistent way (including terminated employee hierarchy history) by including active indicators and effective dates on the relationship rows - this is only fully possible when normalizing the relationship into its own table
no NULLs in the SeniorID (actually on either ID) - this is a distinct advantage in avoiding bad logic, but NULLs will usually appear in views when you have to left join to the relationship table anyway
a better dedicated indexing strategy - as opposed to adding SeniorID to selected indexes you already have on Employee (especially as the number of relationship types grows)
And of course, the more information you relate to this relationship, the more strongly is indicated that the relationship itself merits a table (i.e. it is a "relation" in the true sense of the word as used in relational databases - related data is stored in a relation or table - related to a primary key), and thus a normal form for relationships might strongly indicate that the relationship table be created instead of a simple foreign key relationship in the employee table.
Benefits also include its straightforward delete scenario:
DELETE FROM EmployeeRelationships;
DELETE FROM Employee;
You'll note a striking equivalence to the accepted answer here on SO, since, in your case, employees with no senior relationship have a NULL - so in that answer the poster set all to NULL first to eliminate relationships and then remove the employees.
There is a possibly appropriate usage of TRUNCATE depending upon constraints (EmpployeeRelationships is typically able to be TRUNCATEd since its primary key is usually a composite and not a foreign key in any other table).
Try this
DELETE FROM employee;
Inside a loop, run a command that deletes all rows with an unreferenced EmpID until there are zero rows left. There are a variety of ways to write that inner DELETE command:
DELETE FROM employee WHERE EmpID NOT IN (SELECT SeniorID FROM employee)
DELETE FROM employee e1 WHERE NOT EXISTS
(SELECT * FROM employee e2 WHERE e2.SeniorID = e.EmpID
and probably a third one using a JOIN, but I'm not familiar with the SQL Server syntax for that.
One solution is to normalize this by splitting out "senior" relationship into a separate table. For the sake of generality, make that second table "empID1|empID2|relationship_type".
Barring that, you need to do this in a loop. One way is to do it:
declare #count int
select #count=count(1) from table
while (#count > 0)
BEGIN
delete employee WHERE NOT EXISTS
(select 1 from employee 'e_senior'
where employee.EmpID=e_senior.SeniorID)
select #count=count(1) from table
END