I am preparing for an exam from databases and there is this one thing that puzzles me. From what I've read both sides of any relationship can be constrained to be NOT NULL. I've seen it in at least 2 books and various articles.
Nobody however explains how to insert values into these tables. As far as I know it is not possible in most databases (with the exception of Oracle) to insert into multiple tables at once. That means that it would be needed to insert into one of the tables first. However at that moment there doesn't exist a corresponding entry in the second table so I cannot reference it which violates the NOT NULL constraint.
Another problem is that it is hard to enforce the relationship from both sides in 1:N or M:N relationship. (I can only think of triggers)
So the question is: Are these relationships really implementable or are they just "theoretical" concept which is not used in real life?
To implement a relationship between two entities (tables) in SQL, the primary key of a table (Table1) is make the foreign key in the other table (Table2). If it’s two way mandatory relationship (NOT NULL for both tables) then the entries should be first inserted in Table1 which has the primary key first and then the entries for the other Table2 containing the primary key of the Table1 as the foreign key should be inserted. Check this link for more details and an example.
Related
Consider the following model where a Customer should have one and only one Address and an Address should belong to one and only one Customer:
To implement it, as almost everybody in DB field says, Shared PK is the solution:
But I think it is a fake one-to-one relationship. Because nothing in terms of database relationship actually prevents deleting any row in table Address. So truely, it is 1..[0..1] not 1..1
Am I right? Is there any other way to implement a true 1..1 relation?
Update:
Why cascade delete is not a solution:
If we consider cascade delete as a solution we should put this on either of the tables. Let's say if a row is deleted from table Address, it causes corresponding row in table Customer to be deleted. it's okay but half of the solution. If a row in Customer is deleted, the corresponding row in Address should be deleted as well. This is the second half of the solution, and it obviously makes a cycle.
Beside my comment
You could implement DELETE CASCADE See HOW
I realize there is also the problem of insert.
You have to insert Customer first and then Address
So I think the best way if you really want a 1:1 is create a single table instead.
Customer
CustomerID
Name
Address
City
Sorry, is this meant to be a real-world database relationship? In all of the many databases I have ever built with customer data, there has always been real cases of either customers with multiple addresses, or more than one organisation at the same address.
I wouldn't want to lead you into a database modelling fallacy by suggesting anything different.
Yes, the "shared PK" idiom you show is for 1-to-0-or-1.
The straightforward way to have a true 1-to-1 correspondence is to have one table with Customer and Address as CKs (candidate keys). (Via UNIQUE NOT NULL and/or PRIMARY KEY.) You could offer the separate tables as views. Unfortunately typical DBMSs have restrictions on what you can do via the views, in particular re updating.
The relational way to have separate CUSTOMER and ADDRESS tables and a third table/association/relationship with Customer and Address columns as CKs plus FKs on Customer to and from CUSTOMER and on Address to and from ADDRESS (or equivalent constraint(s)). Unfortunately most DBMSs needlessly won't let you declare cycles in FKs and you cannot impose the constraints without triggers/complexity. (Ultimately, if you want to have proper integrity in a typical SQL database you need to use triggers and complex idioms.)
Entity-oriented design methods unfortunately artificially distinguish between entities, associations and properties. Here is an example where if you consider the simplest design to simply be the one table with PKs then you don't want to always have to have distinct tables for each entity. Or if you consider the simplest design to be the three tables (or even two) with the PKs and FKs (or some other constraint(s) for 1-to-1) then unfortunately typical DBMSs just don't declaratively/ergonomically support that particular design situation.
(Straightforward relational design is to have values (that are sometimes used as ids) 1-to-1 with application things but then just have whatever relevant application relationships/associations/relations and corresponding/representing tables/relations as needed to describe your application situations.)
It's possible in principle to implement a true 1-1 data structure in some DBMSs. It's very difficult to add data or modify data in such a structure using standard SQL however. Standard SQL only permits one table to be updated at a time and therefore as soon as you insert a row into one or other table the intended constraint is broken.
Here are two examples. First using Tutorial D. Note that the comma between the two INSERT statements ensures that the 1-1 constraint is never broken:
VAR CUSTOMER REAL RELATION {
id INTEGER} KEY{id};
VAR ADDRESS REAL RELATION {
id INTEGER} KEY{id};
CONSTRAINT one_to_one (CUSTOMER{id} = ADDRESS{id});
INSERT CUSTOMER RELATION {
TUPLE {id 1234}
},
INSERT ADDRESS RELATION {
TUPLE {id 1234}
};
Now the same thing in SQL.
CREATE TABLE CUSTOMER (
id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY);
CREATE TABLE ADDRESS (
id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY);
INSERT INTO CUSTOMER (id)
VALUES (1234);
INSERT INTO ADDRESS (id)
VALUES (1234);
ALTER TABLE CUSTOMER ADD CONSTRAINT one_to_one_1
FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES ADDRESS (id);
ALTER TABLE ADDRESS ADD CONSTRAINT one_to_one_2
FOREIGN KEY (id) REFERENCES CUSTOMER (id);
The SQL version uses two foreign key constraints, which is the only kind of multi-table constraint supported by most SQL DBMSs. It requires two INSERT statements which means I could only insert a row before adding the constraints, not after.
A strict one-to-one constraint probably isn't very useful in practice but it's actually just a special case of something more important and interesting: join dependency. A join dependency is effectively an "at least one" constraint between tables rather than "exactly one". In the world outside databases it is common to encounter examples of business rules that ought to be implemented as join dependencies ("each customer must have AT LEAST ONE addresss", "each order must have AT LEAST ONE item in it"). In SQL DBMSs it's hard or impossible to implement join dependencies. The usual solution is simply to ignore such business rules thus weakening the data integrity value of the database.
Yes, what you say is true, the dependent side of a 1:1 relationship may not exist -- if only for the time it takes to create the dependent entity after creating the independent entity. In fact, all relationships may have a zero on one side or the other. You can even turn the relationship into a 1:m by placing the FK of the address in the Customer row and making the field not null. You can still have addresses that aren't referenced by any customer.
At first glance, a m:n may look like an exception. The intersection entry is generally defined so that neither FK can be null. But there can be customers and addresses both that have no entry referring to them. So this is really a 0..m:0..n relationship.
What of it? Everyone I've ever worked with has understood that "one" (as in 1:1) or "many" (as in 1:m or m:n) means "no more than this." There is no "exactly this, no more or less." For example, we can design a 1:3 relationship on paper. We cannot strictly enforce it in any database. We have to use triggers, stored procedures and/or scheduled tasks to seek out and call our attention to deviations. Execute a stored procedure weekly, for instance, that will seek and and flag or delete any such orphaned addresses.
Think of it like a "frictionless surface." It exists only on paper.
I see this question as a conceptual misunderstanding. Relations are between different things. Things with a "true 1-to-1 relation" are by definition aspects or attributes of the same thing, and belong in the same table. No, of course a person and and address are not the same, but if they are inseparable, and must always be inserted, deleted, or otherwise acted upon as a unit, then as data they are "the same thing". This is exactly what is described here.
Yes, and it's actually quite easy: just put both entities in the same table!
OTOH, if you need to keep them in separate tables for some reason, then you need a key in one table referencing1 a key in another, and vice-versa. This, of course, represents a "chicken and egg" problem2 which can be resolved by deferring the enforcement of FKs to the end of the transaction3. This works only on DBMSes that support deferred constraints (such as Oracle and PostgreSQL).
1 Via a foreign key.
2 Inserting a row in the first table is impossible because that would violate the referential integrity towards the second table, but inserting a row in the second table is impossible because that would violate the referential integrity towards the first table, etc... Ditto for deletion.
3 So you simply insert both rows, and then check both FKs.
I have three tables in my PostgreSQL database:
User - Contains a username and password
MaleProfile - Contains information related to each male user
FemaleProfile - Contains information related to each female user
Initially, instead of having separate MaleProfile and FemaleProfile tables, I had a single Profile table. In that situation, I would have had a one-to-one relationship between the User table and the Profile table. But I've since decided that I really need separate profile tables for men versus women. In this new situation, each record in the User table must map to one and only one record in either the MaleProfile table or the FemaleProfile table (but not both). From the other direction, each record in the MaleProfile table maps to one and only one record in the User table. The same holds true for each FemaleProfile record.
Strictly speaking, the relationship between the User table and each of the profile tables is one to zero-or-one. But are these relationships essentially just one-to-many relationships in the sense that "many" in this case means just zero or one (but not more than one)? If so, would I express them as you would any one-to-many relationship by creating a foreign key column in the MaleProfile table and in the FemaleProfile table, each of which points to the PK column in the User table? Would I need to add any additional constraints to the profile tables to maintain referential integrity?
Thank you.
Just make sure the referencing column in your male/female tables has a uniqueness constraint on it as well as a foreign key constraint. This is a 1-to-1/0 relationship, not 1-to-many.
CREATE TABLE MaleProfile
(UserId INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
REFERENCES "User" (UserId));
I believe that you should put the employeeID number in the profile tables and enforcing a unique constraint in those tables. Although I can't really think of how to keep someone from having both a male and female entry, I believe that this way is the way to go.
Check out https://stackoverflow.com/a/669015/1504882 to see a similar situation to yours, but instead with different types of employees.
When creating a junction table in sql to handle a many-to-many releationship between two tables, should the foreign key columns in the junction table be able to store null values?
It is a bad idea to do that because it stores no information.
A junction table is a link between 2 tables. If a record exists, by definition it must have the id from both sides to make a "junction" link. Otherwise it carries no useful information and is known as a waste-of-space.TM
No. It doesn't make sense to store a row representing the absence of a relationship in a table you designed to store the presence of relationships.
In addition to the other answers:
the two columns referencing the other tables are usually the primary key of that junction table. So per definition they cannot be null.
There are some circumstances where those columns do not make up the complete primary key (e.g. when having an attribute as part of the link and allowing multiple links with different attributes) - but then that attribute is part of the PK.
(VS2008, SqlCE 3.5)
I try to model a 1:1 relationship. So I put the foreign key in the parent table, holding the PK of the child table. Then I set the foreign key to UNIQUE. Still when I create my entity classes (With SqlMetal), the child class has a reference to an EntitySet of the parent, not just a single entity. This seems like a m:1 relation? So what I need to do to make it 1:1 ?
EDIT1:
I'm confused.. Trying to make a set, like this:
StrategySet(ID, EntryStrategyID{Unique}, ExitStrategyID{Unique})
EntryStrategy(ID)
ExitStrategy(ID)
Is this m:1 isn't it? Though it looks like FK's are in the parent, or wouldn't we name StrategySet the parent? And how would I now change this too 1:1 ?
First of all, the parent is table which is referenced by FK from child. So you can't say that your parent table references the child: it's not correct.
Secondly, 1:1 relations can be made through:
Primary Keys in both tables
Primary Key in parent and Unique Foreign Key in child
So in your case, the architecture is correct. I suppose you should check the structure again, and look through this article.
If all columns in EntryStrategy and ExitStrategy are the same, then all you need is simply this (add all other columns too).
If EntryStrategy and ExitStrategy have some different columns, then use this. Keep all common columns in the Strategy table. EntryStrategy and ExitStrategy have only columns specific to each one.
Here is also a generic example of 1:1 due to vertical partitioning of a table.
Before:
After:
Let me understand the situation you are describing.
You have set of fields which make up a "Strategy". A subset of the fields are conceptually the "EntryStrategy" and a non-intersecting subset of the fields are the "ExitStrategy".
In your case a given set of values making up an "EntryStrategy" can be joined with one and only one set of values making up an "ExitStrategy". This is what you mean when you say there is a 1:1 correspondence.
As smirkingman said earlier, in classic relational database modeling, all of these fields belong in a single table because no subset of the fields appear in more than one record.
If you could have multiple ExitStrategies for a single EntryStrategy then you would have two tables with the EntryStrategy being the parent and the ExitStrategies being the children and the ExitStrategy records would have a Foreign Key pointing to the EntryStrategy parent record.
If you could have multiple EntryStrategies for a single ExitStrategy then you would have two tables with the ExitStrategy being the parent and the EntryStrategies being the children and the EntryStrategy records would have a Foreign Key pointing to the ExitStrategy parent record.
If you could have multiple EntryStrategies associated with multiple ExitStrategies then you would have a many-to-many relationship which requires a third table to maintain the correspondences.
The principles of classic database modeling would put all your fields in one table.
As St Woland wrote, you can enforce the 1:1 relationship by having two tables where the foreign key in the child table is a Unique index. But two tables are normally used for 1-to-many relationships.
As Damir wrote, you can enforce the 1:1 relationship by having three tables where the third table has a foreign key to each of the other two tables and both foreign key fields are marked as Unique indices. However, normally you only use three tables in this fashion when you have a many-to-many relationship.
I think you are expecting way too much from the automated data modeling tools to expect them to construct entities that represent your very unconventional approach.
The answer to your main question is simple. How do I represent a 1:1 relationship? You put them in the same record in a single table!
I don't know whether my idea below is applicable:
I have 2 tables, namely A and B.
Each row in table A can be associated with zero or more rows of table B.
Each row in table B can also be associated with zero or more rows of table A.
Table A contains (among others) 2 columns AId (as a primary key) and BId (as a foreign key).
Table B also contains (among others) 2 columns BId (as a primary key) and AId (as a foreign key).
A cascade delete rule is also setup for each foreign key relationship in DB and model class.
It means deleting a row of A will also delete rows, associated with it, of B or deleting a row of B will delete rows, associated with it, of A.
Is it practically possible to do this scenario?
No, not if you are following normal form.
many to Many relationships are a hallmark of needing an intersection table.
More info:
So here's an example. question tagging. A tag can be on multiple questions, and a question can have multiple tags. this is a many to many realtionship. You COULD put multiple entries of tagIds in the Question entity's Tag Column. But you lose A LOT by doing this.
You will not have integrity, because it is VERY difficult to maintain whether or not a tag exists in your tag table as well as in the questions tag column.
This also violates normal form, because a single column cannot have multiple values.
You also cannot easily join on that column, since it has multiple values in it.
I'm assuming that by 'any-any' relationship you are referring to 'many-to-many'.
What you describe in your post is not a many-to-many relation. What you describe is two separate one-to-many relations.
You have a one-to-many relation from TableA to TableB via the AId column in TableB. And you have another one-to-many relation from TableB to TableA via the BId column in TableA. Having two one-to-many relationships in opposite direction is not the same thing as having a many-to-many relationship. Take Stefan's tagging example and consider three queries (QId1, QId2 and QId3) and three tags (TId1, TId2 and TId3). Try to express that all QId1, QId2 and QId3 are tagged each with all TId1, TId2 and TId3. You'll realize that you cannot, because you're trying to express 9 relations in only 6 available 'foreign key' fields. A true many-to-many relation requires up to MxN 'links' possible between two tables of size M and N, while your design allows for M+N (not surprising, since your design is M links in one of the 1-to-many relations and another N links in the other 1-to-many relation).
What you need is a join table. So you have an a and b table that each have a primary key. Then you create an ab table that only has 2 columns. Both are a foreign key. One goes to the a table and the other goes to the b table.
Google for "Database Normalization". You will find lots of examples.
It's possible, but you definitely don't want to do it that way.
You can use a comma separated string of identities in one of the tables. Looking up value from that table to the other is of course a major hassle. Looking up values from the the other table is a nightmare.
Using a cascading trigger with this method is of course out of the question. It might be possible by making an update trigger do the work, but the performance for that would be so bad that it's pointless.
To do this efficiently you absolutely need another table for the relations.