I have to make a M:1 relationship using SQL Server but I've been wondering if the column representing the "many" side should be foreign key and the column representing "one" side should be primary key.
The purpose is retrieving information from the table with the column representing "one" side using the table with the column representing "many" side.
Do you thing this idea is reasonable and would work successfully?
I've been wondering if the column representing the "many" side should
be foreign key and the column representing "one" side should be
primary key.
The column representing the many side is indeed a primary key of a table, and the column representing the one side is also a primary key of another table. But there is a new column in one of them, is a foreign key that connect each others(this column is the column that makes the relation many to one, and that is the column you should care of).
So, you have to make them into two tables. Consider the following Many to one example:
Countries and cities relation: One Country has many cities.
This would be represented with two tables:
Countries:
CountryID primary key,
Name.
Cities:
CityID primary key1,
CountryId foreign key references Countries(ID),
Name.
And that is how you should create a many to one relation as follows:
The columns CountryID and CityID are primary keys in the two tables.
The column CountryID which represents the one side is a foreign key in the many side(cities table). That is the column that you should
1:You should have a composite key instead of a primary table in the Cities unless you want a city to be in more than one Country at the same time.
Related
If the two columns both have unique values of their own whether it is possible to declare both the columns are primary keys ? PS Not talking about declaring a combination of both the columns as composite key.
A primary key in a table has three properties:
The key is NOT NULL (all components).
The key is unique.
There is only one per table.
This is the definition of a primary key in a relational database. The third condition makes it pretty clear that you cannot have two of them in the same table.
On the other hand, you could have one primary key and another key that is defined as UNIQUE and NOT NULL. You can do this as many times as you like.
This may seem like a simple question, but I am stumped:
I have created a database about cars (in Oracle SQL developer). I have amongst other tables a table called: Manufacturer and a table called Parentcompany.
Since some manufacturers are owned by bigger corporations, I will also show them in my database.
The parentcompany table is the "parent table" and the Manufacturer table the "child table".
for both I have created columns, each having their own Primary Key.
For some reason, when I inserted the values for my columns, I was able to use the same value for the primary key of Manufacturer and Parentcompany
The column: ManufacturerID is primary Key of Manufacturer. The value for this is: 'MBE'
The column: ParentcompanyID is primary key of Parentcompany. The value for this is 'MBE'
Both have the same value. Do I have a problem with the thinking logic?
Or do I just not understand how primary keys work?
Does a primary key only need to be unique in a table, and not the database?
I would appreciate it if someone shed light on the situation.
A primary key is unique for each table.
Have a look at this tutorial: SQL - Primary key
A primary key is a field in a table which uniquely identifies each
row/record in a database table. Primary keys must contain unique
values. A primary key column cannot have NULL values.
A table can have only one primary key, which may consist of single or
multiple fields. When multiple fields are used as a primary key, they
are called a composite key.
If a table has a primary key defined on any field(s), then you cannot
have two records having the same value of that field(s).
Primary key is table-unique. You can use same value of PI for every separate table in DB. Actually that often happens as PI often incremental number representing ID of a row: 1,2,3,4...
For your case more common implementation would be to have hierarchical table called Company, which would have fields: company_name and parent_company_name. In case company has a parent, in field parent_company_name it would have some value from field company_name.
There are several reasons why the same value in two different PKs might work out with no problems. In your case, it seems to flow naturally from the semantics of the data.
A row in the Manufacturers table and a row in the ParentCompany table both appear to refer to the same thing, namely a company. In that case, giving a company the same id in both tables is not only possible, but actually useful. It represents a 1 to 1 correspondence between manufacturers and parent companies without adding extra columns to serve as FKs.
Thanks for the quick answers!
I think I know what to do now. I will create a general company table, in which all companies will be stored. Then I will create, as I go along specific company tables like Manufacturer and parent company that reference a certain company in the company table.
To clarify, the only column I would put into the sub-company tables is a column with a foreign key referencing a column of the company table, yes?
For the primary key, I was just confused, because I hear so much about the key needing to be unique, and can't have the same value as another. So then this condition only goes for tables, not the whole database. Thanks for the clarification!
I have a flight table that only has composite attributes.
I have the PK, which is flight_no obviously, then I have From(city,country) and some other attributes that I similar to "From".
How can I get my table to 1NF? I know that in order to be in 1NF, there cannot be repeating groups.
Another concern is, if I create other tables from those composite attributes, I'd be left with flight_no only. Would that be OK?
I'd extract a locations tables that has a primary key (location_no, for argument's sake) and the city and country attributes.
Then, your flights table could be composed of its own key, flight_no and to and from foreign keys to the locations table.
Is it that a primary key is the selected candidate key chosen for a given table?
Candidate Key – A Candidate Key can be any column or a combination of columns that can qualify as unique key in database. There can be multiple Candidate Keys in one table. Each Candidate Key can qualify as Primary Key.
Primary Key – A Primary Key is a column or a combination of columns that uniquely identify a record. Only one Candidate Key can be Primary Key.
More on this link with example
John Woo's answer is correct, as far as it goes. Here are a few additional points.
A primary key is always one of the candidate keys. Fairly often, it's the only candidate.
A table with no candidate keys does not represent a relation. If you're using the relational model to help you build a good database, then every table you design will have at least one candidate key.
The relational model would be complete without the concept of primary key. It wasn't in the original presentation of the relational model. As a practical matter, the use of foreign key references without a declared primary key leads to a mess. It could be a logically correct mess, but it's a mess nonetheless. Declaring a primary key lets the DBMS help you enforce the data rules. Most of the time, having the DBMS help you enforce the data rules is a good thing, and well worth the cost.
Some database designers and some users have some mental confusion about whether the primary key identifies a row (record) in a table or an instance of an entity in the subject matter that the table represents. In an ideal world, it's supposed to do both, and there should be a one-for-one correspondence between rows in an entity table and instances of the corresponding entity.
In the real world, things get screwed up. Somebody enters the same new employee twice, and the employee ends up with two ids. Somebody gets hired, but the data entry slips through the cracks in some manual process, and the employee doesn't get an id, until the omission is corrected. A database that does not collapse the first time things get screwed up is more robust than one that does.
Primary key -> Any column or set of columns that can uniquely identify a record in the table is a primary key. (There can be only one Primary key in the table)
Candidate key -> Any column or set of columns that are candidate to become primary key are Candidate key. (There can be one or more candidate key(s) in the table, if there is only one candidate key, it can be chosen as Primary key)
A Primary key is a special kind of index in that:
there can be only one;
it cannot be nullable
it must be unique.
Candidate keys are selected from the set of super keys, the only thing we take care while selecting the candidate key is: It should not have any redundant attribute.
Example of an Employee table:
Employee (
Employee ID,
FullName,
SSN,
DeptID
)
Candidate Key: are individual columns in a table that qualifies for the uniqueness of all the rows. Here in Employee table EmployeeID & SSN are Candidate keys.
Primary Key: are the columns you choose to maintain uniqueness in a table. Here in Employee table, you can choose either EmployeeID or SSN columns, EmployeeID is a preferable choice, as SSN is a secure value.
Alternate Key: Candidate column other the Primary column, like if EmployeeID is PK then SSN would be the Alternate key.
Super Key: If you add any other column/attribute to a Primary Key then it becomes a super key, like EmployeeID + FullName, is a Super Key.
Composite Key: If a table does not have a single column that qualifies for a Candidate key, then you have to select 2 or more columns to make a row unique. Like if there is no EmployeeID or SSN columns, then you can make FullName + DateOfBirth as Composite primary Key. But still, there can be a narrow chance of duplicate row.
There is no difference. A primary key is a candidate key. By convention one candidate key in a relation is usually chosen to be the "primary" one but the choice is essentially arbitrary and a matter of convenience for database users/designers/developers. It doesn't make a "primary" key fundamentally any different to any other candidate key.
A table can have so many column which can uniquely identify a row. This columns are referred as candidate keys, but primary key should be one of them because one primary key is enough for a table. So selection of primary key is important among so many candidate key. Thats the main difference.
Think of a table of vehicles with an integer Primary Key.
The registration number would be a candidate key.
In the real world registration numbers are subject change so it depends somewhat on the circumstances what might qualify as a candidate key.
Primary key -> Any column or set of columns that can uniquely identify a record in the table is a primary key. (There can be only one Primary key in the table) and
the candidate key-> the same as Primary key but the Primary Key chosen by DB administrator's prospective for example(the primary key the least candidate key in size)
A primary key is a column (or columns) in a table that uniquely identifies the rows in that table.
CUSTOMERS
CustomerNo FirstName LastName
1 Sally Thompson
2 Sally Henderson
3 Harry Henderson
4 Sandra Wellington
For example, in the table above, CustomerNo is the primary key.
The values placed in primary key columns must be unique for each row: no duplicates can be tolerated. In addition, nulls are not allowed in primary key columns.
So, having told you that it is possible to use one or more columns as a primary key, how do you decide which columns (and how many) to choose?
Well there are times when it is advisable or essential to use multiple columns. However, if you cannot see an immediate reason to use multiple columns, then use one. This isn't an absolute rule, it is simply advice. However, primary keys made up of single columns are generally easier to maintain and faster in operation. This means that if you query the database, you will usually get the answer back faster if the tables have single column primary keys.
Next question — which column should you pick? The easiest way to choose a column as a primary key (and a method that is reasonably commonly employed) is to get the database itself to automatically allocate a unique number to each row.
In a table of employees, clearly any column like FirstName is a poor choice since you cannot control employee's first names. Often there is only one choice for the primary key, as in the case above. However, if there is more than one, these can be described as 'candidate keys' — the name reflects that they are candidates for the responsible job of primary key.
If superkey is a big set than candidate key is some smaller set inside big set and primary key any one element(one at a time or for a table) in candidate key set.
First you have to know what is a determinant?
the determinant is an attribute that used to determine another attribute in the same table.
SO the determinant must be a candidate key. And you can have more than one determinant.
But primary key is used to determine the whole record and you can have only one primary key.
Both primary and candidate key can consist of one or more attributes
Take these tables for example.
Item
id
description
category
Category
id
description
An item can belong to many categories and a category obviously can be attached to many items.
How would the database be created in this situation? I'm not sure. Someone said create a third table, but do I need to do that? Do I literally do a
create table bla bla
for the third table?
Yes, you need to create a third table with mappings of ids, something with columns like:
item_id (Foreign Key)
category_id (Foreign Key)
edit: you can treat item_id and category_id as a primary key, they uniquely identify the record alone. In some applications I've found it useful to include an additional numeric identifier for the record itself, and you might optionally include one if you're so inclined
Think of this table as a listing of all the mappings between Items and Categories. It's concise, and it's easy to query against.
edit: removed (unnecessary) primary key.
Yes, you cannot form a third-normal-form many-to-many relationship between two tables with just those two tables. You can form a one-to-many (in one of the two directions) but in order to get a true many-to-many, you need something like:
Item
id primary key
description
Category
id primary key
description
ItemCategory
itemid foreign key references Item(id)
categoryid foreign key references Category(id)
You do not need a category in the Item table unless you have some privileged category for an item which doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm also not a big fan of introducing unnecessary primary keys when there is already a "real" unique key on the joining table. The fact that the item and category IDs are already unique means that the entire record for the ItemCategory table will be unique as well.
Simply monitor the performance of the ItemCategory table using your standard tools. You may require an index on one or more of:
itemid
categoryid
(itemid,categoryid)
(categoryid,itemid)
depending on the queries you use to join the data (and one of the composite indexes would be the primary key).
The actual syntax for the entire job would be along the lines of:
create table Item (
id integer not null primary key,
description varchar(50)
);
create table Category (
id integer not null primary key,
description varchar(50)
);
create table ItemCategory (
itemid integer references Item(id),
categoryid integer references Category(id),
primary key (itemid,categoryid)
);
There's other sorts of things you should consider, such as making your ID columns into identity/autoincrement columns, but that's not directly relevant to the question at hand.
Yes, you need a "join table". In a one-to-many relationship, objects on the "many" side can have an FK reference to objects on the "one" side, and this is sufficient to determine the entire relationship, since each of the "many" objects can only have a single "one" object.
In a many-to-many relationship, this is no longer sufficient because you can't stuff multiple FK references in a single field. (Well, you could, but then you would lose atomicity of data and all of the nice things that come with a relational database).
This is where a join table comes in - for every relationship between an Item and a Category, the relation is represented in the join table as a pair: Item.id x Category.id.