Say I have field Ice_Cream.flavor, with the current choices in lookup table Flavor.flavor.
I use Flavor.flavor like an enum() list, storing the value, not the record ID, in Ice_Cream.flavor. If Flavor.flavor changes, I don't want to update Ice_Cream:flavor. I want it to stay as created.
Should I set up Ice_Cream.Flavor as a foreign key, so I can see the source of the values in my ER diagram, or not?
If you want Ice_Cream.flavor to stay as created even if there is no matching record in Flavor (which is what your question sounds like) then you cannot create a FOREIGN KEY relationship, it will not allow that condition to occur in your database.
Furthermore, if you're storing the actual text Flavor.Flavor string in Ice_Cream.Flavor, there's no particular reason to have a separate RecordID column in Flavor.
IMHO, you do not need a FK here except if you have additional informations about a flavor in the Flavor table beside the name in the column flavor. It is the case because you do not keep an ID, you keep the name AND you want to keep the old value.
I also supposed that you do not want to keep old flavors in the Flavor table or elsewhere except in the Ice_Cream table.
Last but not least, a FK would require that any flavor stored in Ice_Cream.flavor exists in the Flavor table. It is not the case if I understand correctly your question.
Related
have a table called RoundTable
It has the following columns
RoundName
RoundDescription
RoundType
RoundLogo
Now the RoundType will be having values like "Team", "Individual", "Quiz"
is it necessary to have a one more table called "RoundTypes" with columns
TypeID
RoundType
and remove the RoundType from the rounds table and have a column "TypeID" which has a foreign key to this RoundType table?
Some say that if you have the RoundType in same table it is like hard-coding as there will be lot of round types in future.
is it like if there are going to be only 2-3 round types, i need not have foreign key??
Is it necessary? Obviously not. SQL works fine either way. In a properly defined database, you would do one of two things for RoundType:
Have a lookup table
Have a constraint that checks that values are within an agreed upon set (and I would put enums into this category)
If you have a lookup table, I would advocate having an auto-incremented id (called RoundTypeId) for it. Remember, that in a larger database, such a table would often have more than two columns:
CreatedAt -- when it was created
CreatedBy -- who created it
CreatedOn -- where it was created (important for distributed systems)
Long name
In a more advanced system, you might also need to internationalize the system -- that is, make it work for multiple languages. Then you would be looking up the actual string value in other tables.
is it like if there are going to be only 2-3 round types, i need not
have foreign key??
Usually it's just the opposite: If you have a different value for most of the records (like in a "lastName" column) you won't use a lookup table.
If, however, you know that you will have a limited set of allowed/possible values, a lookup table referenced via a foreign key is probably the better solution.
Maybe read up on "database normalization", starting perhaps # Wikipedia.
Actually you need to have separate table if you have following association between entities,
One to many
Many to many
because of virtue of these association simple DBMS becomes **R**DBMS ( Relation .)
Now ask simple question,
Whether my single record in round table have multiple roundTypes?
If so.. Make a new table and have foreign key in ROUNDTable.
Otherwise no.
yeah I think you should normalize it. Because if you will not do so then definitely you have to enter the round types (value) again and again for each record which is not good practice at all in case if you have large data. so i will suggest you to make another table
however later on you can make a view to get the desired result as fallow
create view vw_anyname
as
select RoundName, RoundDescription , RoundLogo, RoundType from roundtable join tblroundtype
on roundtable.TypeID = tblroundtype .typeid
select * from vw_anyname
For example, I have a table called programs and another called format. The format tables contains a single column called format, which has three possible values: zip, rar and exe. Should the format table have a primary key?
Think what happens if your table would contain:
zip
rar
exe
exe
If you see no problem then your table does not need a PK.
If the values are unique, then perhaps not. However, if you do not have a unique index on the values, you could have duplicates, and that would make it difficult to identify single rows. Also, using a PK with a known, fixed length (such as an integer ID) will help with performance and keep index fragmentation down. Plus, if you need to join to this table, you're better off referencing the ID of a format rather than the value, by using a foreign key (which in some RDBMS requires a PK).
If you have a table called Programs and a table called Format with a bunch of values, why not just have a FormatId column in the Program table and use one of the (currently three) foreign key values in the Format table?
See these notes about Normalisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization (I'm sure you know this, but maybe somebody else reading the question might not).
The table with only one column would have unique values in most of the cases, as repeating value and that too in a single column does not make sense.
So, in your cases, the format would not be repeating (thats what I think), so there is no harm in making primary key but
1) It imposes an indexing on that field (do you want that?)
2) In future, if you are planning to link this to another table, then make sure you use this as a primary key and not introducing anything like format_id for the primary key. If you do so, then please dont make this as a primary key right now.
I am refactoring an old Oracle 10g schema to try to introduce some normalization. In one of the larger tables, there is a text field that has at most, 10-15 possible values. In my mind, it seems that this field is an example of unnecessary data duplication and should be extracted to a separate table.
After examining the data, I cannot find one relevant piece of information that could be associated with that text value. Basically, if I pulled that value out and put it into its own table, it would be the only field in that table. It exists today as more of a 'flag' field. Should I create a two-column table with a surrogate key, keep it as it is, or do something entirely different? Am I doing more harm than good by trying to minimize data duplication on this field?
You might save some space by extracting the column to a separate table. This is called a lookup table. It can give you a couple of other benefits:
You can declare a foreign key constraint to the lookup table, so you can rely on the column in the main table never having any value other than the 10-15 values you want.
It's easy to query for a concise list of all permitted values, by querying the lookup table. This can be faster than using SELECT DISTINCT on the main table's column. It also returns values that are permitted, but not currently used in the main table.
If you change a value in the lookup table, it automatically applies to all rows in the main table that reference it.
However, creating a lookup table with one column is not strictly normalization. You're just replacing one value with another. The attribute in the main table either already supports a normal form, or not.
Using surrogate keys (vs. natural keys) also has nothing to do with normalization. A lot of people make this mistake.
However, if you move other attributes into the lookup table, attributes that depend only on the lookup value and therefore would create repeating groups (violating 3NF) in the main table if you left them there, then that would be normalization.
If you want normalization break it out.
I think of these types of data in DBs as the equivalent of enums in C,C++,C#. Mostly you put them in the table as documentation.
I often have an ID, Name, Description, and auditing columns for them (eg modified by, modified date, create date, create by, active.) The description field is rarely used.
Example (some might say there are more than just 2)
Gender
ID Name Audit Columns...
1 Male
2 Female
Then in your contacts you would have a GenderID column which would link to this one.
Of course you don't "need" the table. You could have external documentation somewhere that says 1=Male, 2=Female -- but I think these tables serve to document a system.
If it's really a free-entry text field that's not re-used somewhere else in the database, and there's just a single field without repeated instances, I'd probably go ahead and leave it as it is. If you're determined to break it out I'd create a 'validation' table with a surrogate key and the text value, then put the surrogate key in the base table.
Share and enjoy.
Are these 10-15 values actually meaningful, or are they really just flags? If they're meaningful pieces of text and it seems wasteful to replicate them, then sure create a lookup table. But if they're just arbitrary flag values, then your new table will be nothing more than a mapping from one arbitrary value to another, and not terribly helpful.
A completely separate question is whether all or most of the rows in your big table even have a value for this column. If not, then indeed you have a good opportunity for normalization and can create a separate table linking the primary key from your base table with the flag value.
Edit: One thing. If there's some chance that one of these "flag" values is likely to be wholesale replaced with another value at some point in the future, that would be another good reason to create a table.
I'm defining a database for a customer/ order system where there are two highly distinct types of customers. Because they are so different having a single customer table would be very ugly (it'd be full of null columns as they are pointless for one type).
Their orders though are in the same format. Is it possible to have a CustomerId column in my Order table which has a foreign key to both the Customer Types? I have set it up in SQL server and it's given me no problems creating the relationships, but I'm yet to try inserting any data.
Also, I'm planning on using nHibernate as the ORM, could there be any problems introduced by doing the relationships like this?
No, you can't have a single field as a foreign key to two different tables. How would you tell where to look for the key?
You would at least need a field that tells what kind of user it is, or two separate foreign keys.
You could also put the information that is common for all users in one table and have separate tables for the information that is specific for the user types, so that you have a single table with user id as primary key.
A foreign key can only reference a single primary key, so no. However, you could use a bridge table:
CustomerA <---- CustomerA_Orders ----> Order
CustomerB <---- CustomerB_Orders ----> Order
So Order doesn't even have a foreign key; whether this is desirable, though...
I inherited a SQL Server database where this was done (a single column used in four foreign key relationships with four unrelated tables), so yes, it's possible. My predecessor is gone, though, so I can't ask why he thought it was a good idea.
He used a GUID column ("uniqueidentifier" type) to avoid the ambiguity problem, and he turned off constraint checking on the foreign keys, since it's guaranteed that only one will match. But I can think of lots of reasons that you shouldn't, and I haven't thought of any reasons you should.
Yours does sound like the classical "specialization" problem, typically solved by creating a parent table with the shared customer data, then two child tables that contain the data unique to each class of customer. Your foreign key would then be against the parent customer table, and your determination of which type of customer would be based on which child table had a matching entry.
You can create a foreign key referencing multiple tables. This feature is to allow vertical partioining of your table and still maintain referential integrity. In your case however, this is not applicable.
Your best bet would be to have a CustomerType table with possible columns - CustomerTypeID, CustomerID, where CustomerID is the PK and then refernce your OrderID table to CustomerID.
Raj
I know this is a very old question; however if other people are finding this question through the googles, and you don't mind adding some columns to your table, a technique I've used (using the original question as a hypothetical problem to solve) is:
Add a [CustomerType] column. The purpose of storing a value here is to indicate which table holds the PK for your (assumed) [CustomerId] FK column. Optional - addition of a check constraint (to ensure CustomerType is in CustomerA or CustomerB) will help you sleep better at night.
Add a computed column for each [CustomerType], eg:
[CustomerTypeAId] as case when [CustomerType] = 'CustomerA' then [CustomerId] end persisted
[CustomerTypeBId] as case when [CustomerType] = 'CustomerB' then [CustomerId] end persisted
Add your foreign keys to the calculated (and persisted) columns.
Caveat: I'm primarily in a MSSQL environment; so I don't know how well this translates to other DBMS (ie: Postgres, ORACLE, etc).
As noted, if the key is, say, 12345, how would you know which table to look it up in? You could, I suppose, do something to insure that the key values for the two tables never overlapped, but this is too ugly and painful to contemplate. You could have a second field that says which customer type it is. But if you're going to have two fields, why not have one field for customer type 1 id and another for customer type 2 id.
Without knowing more about your app, my first thought is that you really should have a general customer table with the data that is common to both, and then have two additional tables with the data specific to each customer type. I would think that there must be a lot of data common to the two -- basic stuff like name and address and customer number at the least -- and repeating columns across tables sucks big time. The additional tables could then refer back to the base table. As there is then a single key for the base table, the issue of foreign keys having to know which table to refer to evaporates.
Two distinct types of customer is a classic case of types and subtypes or, if you prefer, classes and subclasses. Here is an answer from another question.
Essentially, the class-table-inheritance technique is like Arnand's answer. The use of the shared-primary-key technique is what allows you to get around the problems created by two types of foreign key in one column. The foreign key will be customer-id. That will identify one row in the customer table, and also one row in the appropriate kind of customer type table, as the case may be.
Create a "customer" table include all the columns that have same data for both types of customer.
Than create table "customer_a" and "customer_b"
Use "customer_id" from "consumer" table as foreign key in "customer_a" and "customer_b"
customer
|
---------------------------------
| |
cusomter_a customer_b
I am working on a legacy database. I am not able to change the schema :( in a couple of tables the primary key uses multiple columns.
In the app I read the data in each row into a table the user then updates the data and I write the data back into the table.
Currently I concatenate the various PK columns and store them as a unique id for when I put the data back into the table.
Now I was wondering if there is a more efficient way to do that. Coming from a mySQL background I am not aware of any but thought SQL Server 2005 may have a function
SELECT PRIMARYKEY() as pk, ... FROM table WHERE ...
the above would select the key that the database engine uses as the primary key for the given record
I searched and couldn't find anything. Its probably just me being fussy but I don't like the concatenation trick.
DC
In SQL Server, there is no equivalent of PRIMARYKEY() that I would be aware of, really. You can consult the system catalog views to find out which columns make up the primary key, but you can't just simply select the primary key value(s) with a function call.
I would agree with StarShip3000 - what do you concatenate your PK values for? While I don't think a compound primary key made up of several columns is necessarily a very good idea, if it's a legacy system and you can't change it, I wouldn't bother concatenating the PK values on read, and then having to split them apart again when you write your data back. Just leave the structure as it is - compound keys aren't generally recommended, but they are indeed supported, no problem.
"Currently I concatenate the various PK columns and store them as a unique id for when I put the data back into the table."
Can't you just store the pk as two columns in the target table and use that to join back to the two columns on the source table?
What benefit is concatenating giving you here?