I have this case :
UserSettings is not really a junction table since it only has one FK, which is gonna be unique, one UserSettings for one User. Should UserSettings have UserId marked as Primary Key even if UserId is a unique FK or is it unnecessary ?
If you want to ensure this "which is gonna be unique" requirement then you'll need to define UserID either as UNIQUE or as Primary Key constraint.
UserSettings should ideally not exist. Logically, all of this is one table.
If you wish to keep a separate table (which might be useful for performance or architecture) you should probably use the same primary key. In other words, UserSettings should use the FK as the PK. This is advantageous for performance, storage space and simplicity.
With few exceptions, every table should have a primary key. So yes, I would make it a primary key even if it is also a foreign key.
Related
What is considered as a better/standard approach:
A foreign key referencing the primary key of another table (the PK is auto-increment numeric values).
A foreign key referencing the unique key of another table (the unique key column holds meaningful data rather than auto-generated values).
Is there any performance benefits of one approach over the other?
Ideally speaking, the unique key column should have been the PK too, but that is something that I cannot change.
I like the idea of using a unique key as a primary key, especially if you have to store the unique key data for other purposes anyway. It's sad that's something you cannot change, so I'm not sure where you're going with this question. But the only performance issues that come to mind would be the size of the keys, as some datatypes obviously use more storage than other datatypes which would eventually affect query performance. Either way should enforce referential integrity and prevent orphaned records.
I have a table in a SQL database that provides a "many-to-many" connection.
The table contains id's of both tables and some fields with additional information about the connection.
CREATE TABLE SomeTable (
f_id1 INTEGER NOT NULL,
f_id2 INTEGER NOT NULL,
additional_info text NOT NULL,
ts timestamp NULL DEFAULT now()
);
The table is expected to contain 10 000 - 100 000 entries.
How is it better to design a primary key? Should I create an additional 'id' field, or to create a complex primary key from both id's?
DBMS is PostgreSQL
This is a "hard" question in the sense that there are pretty good arguments on both sides. I have a bias toward putting in auto-incremented ids in all tables that I use. Over time, I have found that this simply helps with the development process and I don't have to think about whether they are necessary.
A big reason for this is so foreign key references to the table can use only one column.
In a many-to-many junction table (aka "association table"), this probably isn't necessary:
It is unlikely that you will add a table with a foreign key relationship to a junction table.
You are going to want a unique index on the columns anyway.
They will probably be declared not null anyway.
Some databases actually store data based on the primary key. So, when you do an insert, then data must be moved on pages to accommodate the new values. Postgres is not one of those databases. It treats the primary key index just like any other index. In other words, you are not incurring "extra" work by declaring one more more columns as a primary key.
My conclusion is that having the composite primary key is fine, even though I would probably have an auto-incremented primary key with separate constraints. The composite primary key will occupy less space so probably be more efficient than an auto-incremented id. However, if there is any chance that this table would be used for a foreign key relationship, then add in another id field.
A surrogate key wont protect you from adding multiple instances of (f_id1, f_id2) so you should definitely have a unique constraint or primary key for that. What would the purpose of a surrogate key be in your scenario?
Yes that's actually what people commonly do, that key is called surrogate key.. I'm not exactly sure with PostgreSQL, but in MySQL by using surrogate key you can delete/edit the records from the user interface.. Besides, this allows the database to query the single key column faster than it could multiple columns.. Hope it helps..
I read somewhere saying that every table should have a primary key to fulfill 1NF.
I have a tbl_friendship table.
There are 2 fields in the table : Owner and Friend.
Fields of Owner and Friends are foreign keys of auto increment id field in tbl_user.
Should this tbl_friendship has a primary key?
Should I create an auto increment id field in tbl_friendship and make it as primary key?
Primary keys can apply to multiple columns! In your example, the primary key should be on both columns, For example (Owner, Friend). Especially when Owner and Friend are foreign keys to a users table rather than actual names say (personally, my identity columns use the "Id" naming convention and so I would have (OwnerId, FriendId)
Personally I believe every table should have a primary key, but you'll find others who disagree.
Here's an article I wrote on the topic of normal forms.
http://michaeljswart.com/2011/01/ridiculously-unnormalized-database-schemas-part-zero/
Yes every table should have a primary key.
Yes you should create surrogate key.. aka an auto increment pk field.
You should also make "Friend" an FK to that auto increment field.
If you think that you are going to "rekey" in the future you might want to look into using natural keys, which are fields that naturally identify your data. The key to this is while coding always use the natural identifiers, and then you create unique indexes on those natural keys. In the future if you have to re-key you can, because your ux guarantees your data is consistent.
I would only do this if you absolutely have to, because it increases complexity, in your code and data model.
It is not clear from your description, but are owner and friend foreign keys and there can be only one relationship between any given pair? This makes two foreign key column a perfect candidate for a natural primary key.
Another option is to use surrogate key (extra auto-incremented column as you suggested). Take a look here for an in-depth discussion.
A primary key can be something abstract as well. In this case, each tuple (owner, friend), e.g. ("Dave","Matt") can form a unique entry and therefore be your primary key. In that case, it would be useful not to use names, but keys referencing another table. If you guarantee, that these tuples can't have duplicates, you have a valid primary key.
For processing reasons it might be useful to introduce a special primary key, like an autoincrement field (e.g. in MySQL) or using a sequence with Oracle.
To comply with 1NF (which is not completely aggreed upon what defines 1NF), yes you should have a primary key identified on each table. This is necessary to provide for uniqueness of each record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_normal_form
In general, you can create a primary key in many ways, one of which is to have an auto-increment column, another is to have a column with GUIDs, another is to have two or more columns that will identify a row uniquely when taken together.
Your table will be much easier to manage in the long term if it has a primary key. At the very least, you need to uniquely identify each record in the table. The field that is used to uniquely identify each record might as well be the primary key.
Yes every table should have (at least one) key. Duplicating rows in any table is undesirable for lots of reasons so put the constraint on those two columns.
I hope somebody can edit my title to better describe what I mean, because I don't know exactly what this would be called. However, consider this setup: I want to create a notification system, where a message is displayed to a user until he clicks "dismiss". I then need to "remember" that this user has dismissed the notification so I don't show it to him again. Here is my current solution
users table has a uid primary key and user info
notifications table has a nid primary key and notification text
notifications_seen table with two columns, uid and nid
When somebody clicks dismiss on a notification, I store their uid and the notification's nid in notifications_seen. This seems to work fine, but phpMyAdmin has giant red messages telling me that notifications_seen does not have an index. However, neither column is unique. Should I really have an extra utterly useless column in notifications_seen and call that a primary key? Is there a better way to do this?
You can use more than one column to create your primary key. In this case, you should set nid AND uid as your primary key in your notifications_seen table. The idea here is that even though neither nid or uid will be unique within your notifications_seen table; the nid/uid PAIR is unique. You should add a primary key constraint to these two columns. This is usually what you would like to do for this kind of situation.
There are times where you might actually want to create an auto-increment row to simplify the primary key. For example, when your best candidate key consists of a lot of columns (I'm pulling this out of the air; but lets say 4 or more columns) or you have columns which contain strings; which would be slower to match when doing lookups. But for this situation, just adding the primary key constraint to the two columns should be more than fine.
Primary keys are indexed BY default; which is why you should just add the primary key constraint to the two columns. This will also preserve the integrity of your data by making sure you don't accidentally insert rows with the same uid/nid pair.
You should also add a foreign key constraint on the uid to the id in the users table, and a foreign key constraint to the nid on the id in the notifications table. Adding the foreign key constraints will ensure you don't insert uids or nids which don't actually exist into your notifications_seen table.
You may be able to create a compound primary key (consisting of both uid and nid).
You could make an index on notifications_seen that contains both columns! Or create a separate column just for a primary key, or do both - having an index on uid and nid might speed up queries (but don't worry too much about that until you start to notice major performance problems - just remember it for the future). Having a primary key for these n:n relations isn't a terrible thing.
Someone asked me this question on an interview...
Primary keys can't be null. Unique keys can.
A primary key is a unique field on a table but it is special in the sense that the table considers that row as its key. This means that other tables can use this field to create foreign key relationships to themselves.
A unique constraint simply means that a particular field must be unique.
Primary key can not be null but unique can have only one null value.
Primary key create the cluster index automatically but unique key not.
A table can have only one primary key but unique key more than one.
TL;DR Much can be implied by PRIMARY KEY (uniqueness, reference-able, non-null-ness, clustering, etc) but nothing that can't be stated explicitly using UNIQUE.
I suggest that if you are the kind of coder who likes the convenience of SELECT * FROM... without having to list out all those pesky columns then PRIMARY KEY is just the thing for you.
a relvar can have several keys, but we choose just one for underlining
and call that one the primary key. The choice is arbitrary, so the
concept of primary is not really very important from a logical point
of view. The general concept of key, however, is very important! The
term candidate key means exactly the same as key (i.e., the addition
of candidate has no real significance—it was proposed by Ted Codd
because he regarded each key as a candidate for being nominated as the
primary key)... SQL allows a subset of a table's columns to be
declared as a key for that table. It also allows one of them to be
nominated as the primary key. Specifying a key to be primary makes
for a certain amount of convenience in connection with other
constraints that might be needed
What Is a Key? by Hugh Darwen
it's usual... to single out one key as the primary key (and any other
keys for the relvar in question are then said to be alternate keys).
But whether some key is to be chosen as primary, and if so which one,
are essentially psychological issues, beyond the purview of the
relational model as such. As a matter of good practice, most base
relvars probably should have a primary key—but, to repeat, this rule,
if it is a rule, really isn't a relational issue as such... Strong
recommendation [to SQL users]: For base tables, at any rate, use
PRIMARY KEY and/or UNIQUE specifications to ensure that every such
table does have at least one key.
SQL and Relational Theory: How to Write Accurate SQL Code
By C. J. Date
In standard SQL PRIMARY KEY
implies uniqueness but you can specify that explicitly (using UNIQUE).
implies NOT NULL but you can specify that explicitly when creating columns (but you should be avoiding nulls anyhow!)
allows you to omit its columns in a FOREIGN KEY but you can specify them explicitly.
can be declared for only one key per table but it is not clear why (Codd, who originally proposed the concept, did not impose such a restriction).
In some products PRIMARY KEY implies the table's clustered index but you can specify that explicitly (you may not want the primary key to be the clustered index!)
For some people PRIMARY KEY has purely psychological significance:
they think it signifies that the key will be referenced in a foreign key (this was proposed by Codd but not actually adopted by standard SQL nor SQL vendors).
they think it signifies the sole key of the table (but the failure to enforce other candidate keys leads to loss of data integrity).
they think it implies a 'surrogate' or 'artificial ' key with no significance to the business (but actually imposes unwanted significance on the enterprise by being exposed to users).
Every primary key is a unique constraint, but in addition to the PK, a table can have additional unique constraints.
Say you have a table Employees, PK EmployeeID. You can add a unique constraint on SSN, for example.
Unique Key constraints:
Unique key constraint will provide you a constraint like the column values should retain uniqueness.
It will create non-clustered index by default
Any number of unique constraints can be added to a table.
It will allow null value in the column.
ALTER TABLE table_name
ADD CONSTRAINT UNIQUE_CONSTRAINT
UNIQUE (column_name1, column_name2, ...)
Primary Key:
Primary key will create column data uniqueness in the table.
Primary key will create clustered index by default
Only one Primay key can be created for a table
Multiple columns can be consolidated to form a single primary key
It wont allow null values.
ALTER TABLE table_name
ADD CONSTRAINT KEY_CONSTRAINT
PRIMARY KEY (column_name)
In addition to Andrew's answer, you can only have one primary key per table but you can have many unique constraints.
Primary key's purpose is to uniquely identify a row in a table. Unique constraint ensures that a field's value is unique among the rows in table.
You can have only one primary key per table. You can have more than one unique constraint per table.
A primary key is a minimal set of columns such that any two records with identical values in those columns have identical values in all columns. Note that a primary key can consist of multiple columns.
A uniqueness constraint is exactly what it sounds like.
The UNIQUE constraint uniquely identifies each record in a database table.
The UNIQUE and PRIMARY KEY constraints both provide a guarantee for uniqueness for a column or set of columns.
A PRIMARY KEY constraint automatically has a UNIQUE constraint defined on it.
Note that you can have many UNIQUE constraints per table, but only one PRIMARY KEY constraint per table
Primary key can't be null but unique constraint is nullable.
when you choose a primary key for your table it's atomatically Index that field.
Primary keys are essentially combination of (unique +not null). also when referencing a foreign key the rdbms requires Primary key.
Unique key just imposes uniqueness of the column.A value of field can be NULL in case of uniqe key. Also it cannot be used to reference a foreign key, that is quite obvious as u can have null values in it
Both guarantee uniqueness across the rows in the table, with the exception of nulls as mentioned in some of the other answers.
Additionally, a primary key "comes with" an index, which could be either clustered or non-clustered.
There are several good answers in here so far. In addition to the fact that a primary key can't be null, is a unique constraint itself, and can be comprised of multiple columns, there are deeper meanings that depend on the database server you are using.
I am a SQL Server user, so a primary key has a more specific meaning to me. In SQL Server, by default, primary keys are also part of what is called the "clustered index". A clustered index defines the actual ordering of data pages for that particular table, which means that the primary key ordering matches the physical order of rows on disk.
I know that one, possibly more, of MySql's table formats also support clustered indexing, which means the same thing as it does in SQL Server...it defines the physical row ordering on disk.
Oracle provides something called Index Organized Tables, which order the rows on disk by the primary key.
I am not very familiar with DB2, however I think a clustered index means the rows on disk are stored in the same order as a separate index. I don't know if the clustered index must match the primary key, or if it can be a distinct index.
A great number of the answers here have discussed the properties of PK vs unique constraints. But it is more important to understand the difference in concept.
A primary key is considered to be an identifier of the record in the database. So these will for example be referenced when creating foreign key references between tables. A primary key should therefore under normal circumstances never contain values that have any meaining in your domain (often automatically incremential fields are used for this).
A unique constraint is just a way of enforcing domain specific business rules in your database schema.
Becuase a PK it is an identifier for the record, you can never change the value of a primary key.