I am interested in using the SQLDataAdapter with the DataTable and associated Insert/Update/Delete Command operations that I can attach to the Adapter object. My question is this. Does each row in the datatable used necessarily need to correspond to any one physical table ? What I would like to be able to do is allow a single row to represent columns that span multiple tables and then craft each of the insert/update commands to handle their operations across these tables. That would mean that what I assign to the command might actually be a more complex sql statement even wrapped in BEGIN/END so that I can insert into the first "anchor" table then use that primary key and for the foreign key column of the subsequent column.
So far all the examples I see relate to each data table representing a single table. I realize that I could perhaps use a dataset but then how would I attach a command relative to each data table within the set. Furthermore how then could I relate the rows from table to the rows of the dhild table.?
Anyone try this ?
You could create a View with an instead of insert trigger. Within the trigger you can split the columns as you like and do multiple inserts to different tables.
Related
I'm writing a stored procedure that links together data from several different relational tables based on the primary key for the main table. This information is being send to a flat database. The stored procedure is going to produce several nearly identical rows where only a single column may be different due to multiple entries in some of the tables that are linked to a single entry in the main table. I need to uniquely identify each row in the stored procedure output but I am unable to use the primary key from the main table since there will be multiple entries for each "key".
I considered taking the approach of using the primary key from the main table followed by each of the columns that may be different in duplicate rows. For example _
However, this approach results in a very long and messy key. I am unable to use a GUID because if any data changes in the relational database the stored procedure is rerun and must update old entries rather than create new ones.
If your purpose is only to have a unique key that is as short as possible and does not relate to anything else, consider just adding ROW_NUMBER() to your select.
SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY (SELECT NULL)), othercolumns
I have different tables in my scheme with different columns, but I want to store data of when was the table modified or when was the data stored, so I added some columns to specify that.
I realized that I had to add the same "modification_date" and "modification_time" columns to all my tables, so I thought about making a new table called DATA_INFO so I won't need to do so, but every table has a different PRIMARY KEY and I don't know which one to add as FOREIGN KEY to the DATA_INFO table.
I don't know if I have to maybe add all of them or is there another way to do what I need.
It's better to have the same "modification_datetime" column in all tables, rather than trying to keep that data in a central table.
That's what we have done at every shop I've worked in.
I want to emphasize that a separate table is not reasonable for this purpose. The lack of an obvious foreign key is a hint.
Unlike Tab Allerman, tables that I create are much less likely to be updated, so I have three additional columns on most tables:
CreatedBy -- the user who created the row
CreatedAt -- when the row was creatd
CreatedOn -- the system where the table was created
The most important point is that this information can -- in many databases -- be implemented using default values rather than triggers. That is a big advantage of working within a single row. The fewer triggers, the better.
I have a problem with finding a way to represent multiple tables hash tables into a single table.
Say I have 3 tables with the format:
Table1(Table1_PK1,Table1_PK2,Table1_PK3,Table1_Hash)
Table2(Table2_PK1,Table2_PK2,Table2_Hash)
Table3(Table3_Pk1,Table3_PK2,Table3_PK3,Table3_PK4,Table3_PK5,Table3_Hash)
Table1_PK1,Table1_PK2,Table1_PK3... are columns and they might have different datatypes (VARCHAR, INT or DATETIME ...).
My question is if there is a way to create a single table (fixed number of columns) that can represent all of these 3 tables (may be more in practical).
I am trying to do this for my database tool. Each table actual a table which contains primary keys and a hash data associating with them.
Since you're apparently building a database tool, not a database, it might make more sense to do this in application code rather than in a database table.
In a different answer, you commented
I am still looking for a dynamic way to do it without knowing how many primary keys a table can have.
A table can have only one primary key. That primary key can consist of more than one column, though. (You already knew this; you were just using the wrong words, which might confuse others.)
A table can also have an arbitrary number of other keys, which will be either declared (as NOT NULL UNIQUE) or "undeclared" (by creating an index that guarantees uniqueness over a set of columns).
You can look all that stuff up at run time in one or both of two ways. (Links go to documentation for PostgreSQL.)
System tables, sometimes called system catalogs
information_schema views
As far as I know, all modern SQL platforms implement at least one of these interfaces. The information_schema views are covered in the SQL standards, but there seems to be some room for interpretation. They don't look quite the same on all platforms.
Why combine the 3 tables into one? Would be really bad db design. But here's a way to do it:
The one table will have a column for each of the 3 tables' columns you want in the final table. I am making the assumption that TableX_Hash is the same type, so that remains as one unique column:
Table_All_in_One (
Table1_PK1,
Table1_PK2,
Table1_PK3,
# space just for clarity of grouping
Table2_PK1,
Table2_PK2,
Table3_PK1,
Table3_PK2,
Table3_PK3,
Table3_PK4,
Table3_PK5,
TableX_Hash # Assuming all the _Hash'es are the same type+length,
# otherwise, add Table1_Hash, Table2_Hash, Table3_Hash
# This can be your new primary key
)
The Primary Keys (PKx) are required to be non-NULL only in their own tables. For this table, they have to allow nulls. The idea is that each row of this new table will only hold the data for one of the tables. The other columns will be empty for that row. If you want to associate the row of one table with another, you can add that to the same row or add FK_Table1_Hash, FK_Table2_Hash and FK_Table3_Hash columns which will refer to the TableX_Hash value of a record.
PS: I wonder if what you are really looking for is a View and not this really bad all-in-one table.
Edit: Combining them into one "without knowing how many primary keys a table can have." as per your comment:
Store all the _PKs concatenated into one column:
Table_All_in_One (
New_PK,
TableX_Hash,
Table1_PKx, # Concatenated PKs of Table1
Table2_PKx, # Concatenated PKs of Table2, etc.
...,
# OR just one
TableX_PKs, # concatenate all the PK's into one VARCHAR field
# Add a pipe `|` between them optionally.
Table_Num # If using just one, then you'll need to store the table number
)
You will not be able to conveniently pick records based on part of their composite primary key. It will always have to be TableX_PKs = CONCAT_WS('|', Table1_PK1, Table1_PK2, ...). So your only dependency is the number of PKs in the original column.
In order to model a bunch of tables you will need 3 tables. An entity table that contains the table names of the tables you wish to set up this way called a factor or entity table. A Factor_detail table that contains all the columns and their associated properties of the tables. A table, factor_detail_value, for storing things like lookup values for lookup tables. I'm trying to learn more about this myself as well because we are using this technique at work as well. Genrate sql on the fly for any table so encoded, and store the data in a repository pertiinant to the data itself. This way if a table changes and you need to add a column or change a datatype, you can add a row to the factor detail table without affecting a database shut down in production. In most businesses a four hour shut down to make a sql data table change can cost thousands of dollars. If you are dealing with insurance for example, each additional state that you sell insurance in has different requirements for being able to seel it and that will result in table changes. We reduced our table count way down from over 700 tables in this manner also we can make changes without database shut down thus avoiding the loss in revenue.
I'm looking for a way to set up a one to many relationship between 2 tables. The table structures is explained below but I've tried to leave everything off that has nothing to do with the problem.
Table objects has 1 column called uuid.
Table contents has 3 columns called content, object_uuid and timestamp.
The basic idea is to insert a row into objects and get a new uuid from the database. This uuid is then used stored for every row in contents to associate contents with objects.
Now I'm trying to use the database to enforce that:
Each row in contents references a row in objects (a foreign key should do)
No row in objects exists without at least a row in contents
These constraints should be enforced on commit of transactions.
Ordinary triggers can't help probably because when a row in the objects table is written, there can't be a row in contents yet. Postgres does have so called constraint triggers that can be deferred until the end of the transaction. It would be possible to use those but they seem to be some sort of internal construct not intended for everyday use.
Ideas or solutions should be standard SQL (preferred) or work with Postgres (version does not matter). Thanks for any input.
Your main problem is that other than foreign key constraints; no constraint can reference another table.
Your best bet is to denormalize this a little and have a column on object containing the count of contents that reference it. You can create a trigger to keep this up to date.
contents_count INTEGER NOT NULL DEFAULT 0
This won't be as unbreakable unless you put some user security over who can update this column. But if you keep it up to date with a trigger and all you're looking to avoid is accidental corruption, this should be sufficient.
EDIT: As per the comment, CHECK constraints are not deferrable. This solution would raise an error if all the contents are removed even if the intention is to add more in the same transaction.
Maybe what you want to do is normalize a little bit more. You need a third table, that references elements of the other tables. Table objects should have its own uuid and table contents sholud have also its own uuid and no reference to the table objects. The third table should have only the references to the other two tables, but the primary key is the combination of both references.
so for example you have an uuid of the table objects and you want all the contents of that uuid, assuming that the third table has as columns object_uuid and content_uuid, and the table contents has its own serial column named uuid, your query should be like this:
SELECT * FROM thirdtable,contents
WHERE thirdtable.content_uuid = contents.uuid AND thirdtable.object_uuid=34;
Then you can use an on insert trigger on every table
CREATE TRIGGER my_insert_trigger AFTER INSERT OR UPDATE ON contents
FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE my_check_function();
and then in function my_check_function() delete every row in objects that is not present in the third table. Somebody else answered first while I was answering, if you guys like my solution I could help you to make the my_check_function() function.
I have one staging table and want to insert data to Main table, so i want to check while inserting data from staging to Main table, if exists then update the records else insert as new records. Here the issue is both the staging as well as Main table does not have any key column based on which i can compare values.
Is it possible to do without having key columns i.e. primary key on both the tables? if yes, please, suggest me how.
Thanks in advance.
If there is no unique key or set of data within a row to define uniqueness, then no.
The set of data can be a combination of the data in each column, creating a sum of parts which will provide uniqueness; however without exposure to your data you would need to make that decision.
You write the WHERE-clause to include all the fields that make your record unique (ie. the fields that decide whether the record is new or should be updated.)
Take a look at this article (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/miah/archive/2008/02/17/sql-if-exists-update-else-insert.aspx) for hints on how to construct it.
If you are using SQL Server 2008r2, you could also use the MERGE statement - I haven't tried it on tables without keys, so I don't know whether it would work for you.