Please clarify two things for me:
Can a Foreign key be NULL?
Can a Foreign key be duplicate?
As fair as I know, NULL shouldn't be used in foreign keys, but in some application of mine I'm able to input NULL in both Oracle and SQL Server, and I don't know why.
Short answer: Yes, it can be NULL or duplicate.
I want to explain why a foreign key might need to be null or might need to be unique or not unique. First remember a Foreign key simply requires that the value in that field must exist first in a different table (the parent table). That is all an FK is by definition. Null by definition is not a value. Null means that we do not yet know what the value is.
Let me give you a real life example. Suppose you have a database that stores sales proposals. Suppose further that each proposal only has one sales person assigned and one client. So your proposal table would have two foreign keys, one with the client ID and one with the sales rep ID. However, at the time the record is created, a sales rep is not always assigned (because no one is free to work on it yet), so the client ID is filled in but the sales rep ID might be null. In other words, usually you need the ability to have a null FK when you may not know its value at the time the data is entered, but you do know other values in the table that need to be entered. To allow nulls in an FK generally all you have to do is allow nulls on the field that has the FK. The null value is separate from the idea of it being an FK.
Whether it is unique or not unique relates to whether the table has a one-one or a one-many relationship to the parent table. Now if you have a one-one relationship, it is possible that you could have the data all in one table, but if the table is getting too wide or if the data is on a different topic (the employee - insurance example #tbone gave for instance), then you want separate tables with a FK. You would then want to make this FK either also the PK (which guarantees uniqueness) or put a unique constraint on it.
Most FKs are for a one to many relationship and that is what you get from a FK without adding a further constraint on the field. So you have an order table and the order details table for instance. If the customer orders ten items at one time, he has one order and ten order detail records that contain the same orderID as the FK.
1 - Yes, since at least SQL Server 2000.
2 - Yes, as long as it's not a UNIQUE constraint or linked to a unique index.
Yes foreign key can be null as told above by senior programmers... I would add another scenario where Foreign key will required to be null....
suppose we have tables comments, Pictures and Videos in an application which allows comments on pictures and videos. In comments table we can have two Foreign Keys PicturesId, and VideosId along with the primary Key CommentId. So when you comment on a video only VideosId would be required and pictureId would be null... and if you comment on a picture only PictureId would be required and VideosId would be null...
it depends on what role this foreign key plays in your relation.
if this foreign key is also a key attribute in your relation, then it can't be NULL
if this foreign key is a normal attribute in your relation, then it can be NULL.
Here's an example using Oracle syntax:
First let's create a table COUNTRY
CREATE TABLE TBL_COUNTRY ( COUNTRY_ID VARCHAR2 (50) NOT NULL ) ;
ALTER TABLE TBL_COUNTRY ADD CONSTRAINT COUNTRY_PK PRIMARY KEY ( COUNTRY_ID ) ;
Create the table PROVINCE
CREATE TABLE TBL_PROVINCE(
PROVINCE_ID VARCHAR2 (50) NOT NULL ,
COUNTRY_ID VARCHAR2 (50)
);
ALTER TABLE TBL_PROVINCE ADD CONSTRAINT PROVINCE_PK PRIMARY KEY ( PROVINCE_ID ) ;
ALTER TABLE TBL_PROVINCE ADD CONSTRAINT PROVINCE_COUNTRY_FK FOREIGN KEY ( COUNTRY_ID ) REFERENCES TBL_COUNTRY ( COUNTRY_ID ) ;
This runs perfectly fine in Oracle. Notice the COUNTRY_ID foreign key in the second table doesn't have "NOT NULL".
Now to insert a row into the PROVINCE table, it's sufficient to only specify the PROVINCE_ID. However, if you chose to specify a COUNTRY_ID as well, it must exist already in the COUNTRY table.
By default there are no constraints on the foreign key, foreign key can be null and duplicate.
while creating a table / altering the table, if you add any constrain of uniqueness or not null then only it will not allow the null/ duplicate values.
Simply put, "Non-identifying" relationships between Entities is part of ER-Model and is available in Microsoft Visio when designing ER-Diagram. This is required to enforce cardinality between Entities of type " zero or more than zero", or "zero or one". Note this "zero" in cardinality instead of "one" in "one to many".
Now, example of non-identifying relationship where cardinality may be "zero" (non-identifying) is when we say a record / object in one entity-A "may" or "may not" have a value as a reference to the record/s in another Entity-B.
As, there is a possibility for one record of entity-A to identify itself to the records of other Entity-B, therefore there should be a column in Entity-B to have the identity-value of the record of Entity-B. This column may be "Null" if no record in Entity-A identifies the record/s (or, object/s) in Entity-B.
In Object Oriented (real-world) Paradigm, there are situations when an object of Class-B does not necessarily depends (strongly coupled) on object of class-A for its existence, which means Class-B is loosely-coupled with Class-A such that Class-A may "Contain" (Containment) an object of Class-A, as opposed to the concept of object of Class-B must have (Composition) an object of Class-A, for its (object of class-B) creation.
From SQL Query point of view, you can query all records in entity-B which are "not null" for foreign-key reserved for Entity-B. This will bring all records having certain corresponding value for rows in Entity-A alternatively all records with Null value will be the records which do not have any record in Entity-A in Entity-B.
Can a Foreign key be NULL?
Existing answers focused on single column scenario. If we consider multi column foreign key we have more options using MATCH [SIMPLE | PARTIAL | FULL] clause defined in SQL Standard:
PostgreSQL-CREATE TABLE
A value inserted into the referencing column(s) is matched against the values of the referenced table and referenced columns using the given match type. There are three match types: MATCH FULL, MATCH PARTIAL, and MATCH SIMPLE (which is the default). MATCH FULL will not allow one column of a multicolumn foreign key to be null unless all foreign key columns are null; if they are all null, the row is not required to have a match in the referenced table. MATCH SIMPLE allows any of the foreign key columns to be null; if any of them are null, the row is not required to have a match in the referenced table. MATCH PARTIAL is not yet implemented.
(Of course, NOT NULL constraints can be applied to the referencing column(s) to prevent these cases from arising.)
Example:
CREATE TABLE A(a VARCHAR(10), b VARCHAR(10), d DATE , UNIQUE(a,b));
INSERT INTO A(a, b, d)
VALUES (NULL, NULL, NOW()),('a', NULL, NOW()),(NULL, 'b', NOW()),('c', 'b', NOW());
CREATE TABLE B(id INT PRIMARY KEY, ref_a VARCHAR(10), ref_b VARCHAR(10));
-- MATCH SIMPLE - default behaviour nulls are allowed
ALTER TABLE B ADD CONSTRAINT B_Fk FOREIGN KEY (ref_a, ref_b)
REFERENCES A(a,b) MATCH SIMPLE;
INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (1, NULL, 'b');
-- (NULL/'x') 'x' value does not exists in A table, but insert is valid
INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (2, NULL, 'x');
ALTER TABLE B DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS B_Fk; -- cleanup
-- MATCH PARTIAL - not implemented
ALTER TABLE B ADD CONSTRAINT B_Fk FOREIGN KEY (ref_a, ref_b)
REFERENCES A(a,b) MATCH PARTIAL;
-- ERROR: MATCH PARTIAL not yet implemented
DELETE FROM B; ALTER TABLE B DROP CONSTRAINT IF EXISTS B_Fk; -- cleanup
-- MATCH FULL nulls are not allowed
ALTER TABLE B ADD CONSTRAINT B_Fk FOREIGN KEY (ref_a, ref_b)
REFERENCES A(a,b) MATCH FULL;
-- FK is defined, inserting NULL as part of FK
INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (1, NULL, 'b');
-- ERROR: MATCH FULL does not allow mixing of null and nonnull key values.
-- FK is defined, inserting all NULLs - valid
INSERT INTO B(id, ref_a, ref_b) VALUES (1, NULL, NULL);
db<>fiddle demo
I think it is better to consider the possible cardinality we have in the tables.
We can have possible minimum cardinality zero. When it is optional, the minimum participation of tuples from the related table could be zero, Now you face the necessity of foreign key values to be allowed null.
But the answer is it all depends on the Business.
The idea of a foreign key is based on the concept of referencing a value that already exists in the main table. That is why it is called a foreign key in the other table. This concept is called referential integrity. If a foreign key is declared as a null field it will violate the the very logic of referential integrity. What will it refer to? It can only refer to something that is present in the main table. Hence, I think it would be wrong to declare a foreign key field as null.
I think foreign key of one table also primary key to some other table.So it won't allows nulls.So there is no question of having null value in foreign key.
Related
I understand that, unless specified, foreign key columns can be NULL and duplicated (at least in Oracle SQL). Is it better practice to have foreign key columns declared not null and unique or leave them as is? Is this a decision that should be made based on the situation at hand, or is there a general rule that should be followed?
All databases allow foreign keys to be NULLable and non-UNIQUE. How you choose to declare a particular foreign key depends on the business case.
Consider the following tables used by a company that sells supplies to secret agents.
CountryList (
CountryCode NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
CountryName NOT NULL
)
SecretAgents (
CodeName NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
HomeCountryCode FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES CountryList(CountryCode)
)
Clearly, HomeCountryCode will not be unique because you may sell to more than one spy in each country. Is it NULLable? That depends on whether your business model requires each customer to declare their home country or not. If the model allows you to do business with someone who does not have a home country, or does not wish to reveal the home country to you, then the field should be NULLable. But if a state-less actor is not contemplated in your business model you should declare the column NOT NULL so that an invalid customer record cannot be created.
Now, consider the additional table
SpyMasters (
CountryCode NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY References CountryList(CountryCode),
Name NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
)
This table lists the (singleton) head of spying for those countries that have a spy master. Not all countries will appear in this list, but each country can appear only once. In this case the CountryCode field is UNIQUE -- but you don't have to declare that explicitly because PRIMARY KEY always includes uniqueness.
The foreign key is an attribute in another table. In the original table ("referenced table"), the foreign key should be unique and non-NULL. In fact, it should almost always be the primary key of that table.
In the referencing table, the referencing column should only be declared not-NULL if a value is always required. It should only be declared unique if you never want duplicates. In other words, it depends on the characteristics in the referencing table, not the referenced table.
Why does add a foreign key to the tblDomare table result in this error?
The ALTER TABLE statement conflicted with the FOREIGN KEY constraint "FK__tblDomare__PersN__5F7E2DAC". The conflict occurred in database "almu0004", table "dbo.tblBana", column 'BanNR'.
Code
CREATE TABLE tblDomare
(PersNR VARCHAR (15) NOT NULL,
fNamn VARCHAR (15) NOT NULL,
eNamn VARCHAR (20) NOT NULL,
Erfarenhet VARCHAR (5),
PRIMARY KEY (PersNR));
INSERT INTO tblDomare (PersNR,fNamn,eNamn,Erfarenhet)
Values (6811034679,'Bengt','Carlberg',10);
INSERT INTO tblDomare (PersNR,fNamn,eNamn,Erfarenhet)
Values (7606091347,'Josefin','Backman',4);
INSERT INTO tblDomare (PersNR,fNamn,eNamn,Erfarenhet)
Values (8508284163,'Johanna','Backman',1);
CREATE TABLE tblBana
(BanNR VARCHAR (15) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (BanNR));
INSERT INTO tblBana (BanNR)
Values (1);
INSERT INTO tblBana (BanNR)
Values (2);
INSERT INTO tblBana (BanNR)
Values (3);
ALTER TABLE tblDomare
ADD FOREIGN KEY (PersNR)
REFERENCES tblBana(BanNR);
It occurred because you tried to create a foreign key from tblDomare.PersNR to tblBana.BanNR but/and the values in tblDomare.PersNR didn't match with any of the values in tblBana.BanNR. You cannot create a relation which violates referential integrity.
This query was very useful for me. It shows all values that don't have any matches
select FK_column from FK_table
WHERE FK_column NOT IN
(SELECT PK_column from PK_table)
Try this solution:
There is a data item in your table whose associated value doesn't exist in the table you want to use it as a primary key table.
Make your table empty or add the associated value to the second table.
It is possible to create the foreign key using ALTER TABLE tablename WITH NOCHECK ..., which will allow data that violates the foreign key.
"ALTER TABLE tablename WITH NOCHECK ..." option to add the FK -- This solution worked for me.
Remove all existing data from your tables and then make a relation between the tables.
Before You add Foreign key to the table, do the following
Make sure the table must empty or The column data should match.
Make sure it is not null.
If the table contains do not go to design and change, do it manually.
alter table Table 1 add foreign key (Column Name) references Table 2 (Column Name)
alter table Table 1 alter column Column Name attribute not null
I guess, a column value in a foreign key table should match with the column value of the primary key table. If we are trying to create a foreign key constraint between two tables where the value inside one column(going to be the foreign key) is different from the column value of the primary key table then it will throw the message.
So it is always recommended to insert only those values in the Foreign key column which are present in the Primary key table column.
For ex. If the Primary table column has values 1, 2, 3 and in Foreign key column the values inserted are different, then the query would not be executed as it expects the values to be between 1 & 3.
In very simple words your table already has data present in it and the table you are trying to create relationship with does have that Primary key set for the values that are already present.
Either delete all the values of the existing table.
Add all the values of foreign key reference in the new table.
Try DELETE the current datas from tblDomare.PersNR . Because the values in tblDomare.PersNR didn't match with any of the values in tblBana.BanNR.
When you define a Foreign Key in table B referencing the Primary Key of table A it means that when a value is in B, it must be in A. This is to prevent unconsistent modifications to the tables.
In your example, your tables contain:
tblDomare with PRIMARY KEY (PersNR):
PersNR |fNamn |eNamn |Erfarenhet
-----------|----------|-----------|----------
6811034679 |'Bengt' |'Carlberg' |10
7606091347 |'Josefin' |'Backman' |4
8508284163 |'Johanna' |'Backman' |1
---------------------------------------------
tblBana:
BanNR
-----
1
2
3
-----
This statement:
ALTER TABLE tblDomare
ADD FOREIGN KEY (PersNR)
REFERENCES tblBana(BanNR);
says that any line in tblDomare with key PersNR must have a correspondence in table tblBana on key BanNR. Your error is because you have lines inserted in tblDomare with no correspondence in tblBana.
2 solutions to fix your issue:
either add lines in tblBana with BanNR in (6811034679, 7606091347, 8508284163)
or remove all lines in tblDomare that have no correspondence in tblBana (but your table would be empty)
General advice: you should have the Foreign Key constraint before populating the tables. Foreign keys are here to prevent the user of the table from filling the tables with inconsistencies.
i had this error too
as Smutje reffered make sure that you have not a value in foreign key column of your base foreign key table that is not in your reference table i.e(every value in your base foreign key table(value of a column that is foreign key) must also be in your reference table column)
its good to empty your base foreign key table first then set foreign keys
the data you have entered a table(tbldomare) aren't match a data you have assigned primary key table. write between tbldomare and add this word (with nocheck) then execute your code.
for example you entered a table tbldomar this data
INSERT INTO tblDomare (PersNR,fNamn,eNamn,Erfarenhet)
Values (6811034679,'Bengt','Carlberg',10);
and you assigned a foreign key table to accept only 1,2,3.
you have two solutions one is delete the data you have entered a table then execute the code. another is write this word (with nocheck) put it between your table name and add
like this
ALTER TABLE tblDomare with nocheck
ADD FOREIGN KEY (PersNR)
REFERENCES tblBana(BanNR);
Smutje is correct and Chad HedgeCock offered a great layman's example.
Id like to build on Chad's example by offering a way to find/delete those records.
We will use Customer as the Parent and Order as the child. CustomerId is the common field.
select * from Order Child
left join Customer Parent on Child.CustomerId = Parent.CustomerId
where Parent.CustomerId is null
if you are reading this thread... you will get results. These are orphaned children. select * from Order Child
left join Customer Parent on Child.CustomerId = Parent.CustomerId
where Parent.CustomerId is null Note the row count in the bottom right.
Go verify w/ whomever you need to that you are going to delete these rows!
begin tran
delete Order
from Order Child
left join Customer Parent on Child.CustomerId = Parent.CustomerId
where Parent.CustomerId is null
Run the first bit.
Check that row count = what you expected
commit the tran
commit tran
Be careful. Someone's sloppy programming got you into this mess. Make sure you understand the why before you delete the orphans. Maybe the parent needs to be restored.
From our end, this is the scenario:
We have an existing table in the database with records.
Then I introduces a NOT nullable foreign key
After executing the update i got this error.
How did i solve you ask?
SOLUTION: I just removed all the records of the table, then tried to update the database and it was successful.
This happens to me, since I am designing my database, I notice that I change my seed on my main table, now the relational table has no foreign key on the main table.
So I need to truncate both tables, and it now works!
You should see if your tables has any data on the rows. If "yes" then you should truncate the table(s) or else you can make them to have the same number of data at tblDomare.PersNR to tblBana.BanNR and vise-verse.
In my scenario, using EF, upon trying to create this new Foreign Key on existing data, I was wrongly trying to populate the data (make the links) AFTER creating the foreign key.
The fix is to populate your data before creating the foreign key since it checks all of them to see if the links are indeed valid. So it couldn't possibly work if you haven't populated it yet.
I encounter some issue in my project.
In child table, there isn't any record Id equals 1 and 11
I inserted DEAL_ITEM_THIRD_PARTY_PO table which Id equals 1 and 11 then I can create FK
Please first delete data from that table and then run the migration again. You will get success
I had the same problem.
My issue was having nullable: true in column (migration file):
AddColumn("dbo.table", "column", c => c.Int(nullable: true));
Possible Solutions:
Change nullable 'false' to 'true'. (Not Recommended)
Change property type from int to int? (Recommended)
And if required, change this later after adding column > then missing field data in previous records
If you've changed an existing property from nullable to non-nullable:
3) Fill the column data in database records
A foreign key constraint in a child table must have a parent table with a primary key. The primary key must be unique. The foreign key value must match a value in the patent table primary key
When you alter table column from nullable to not nullable column where this column is foreign key, you must :
Firstly, initialize this column with value (because it is foreign
key not nullable).
After that you can alter your table column normally.
Please try below query:
CREATE TABLE tblBana
(BanNR VARCHAR (15) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
);
CREATE TABLE tblDomare
(PersNR VARCHAR (15) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
fNamn VARCHAR (15) NOT NULL,
eNamn VARCHAR (20) NOT NULL,
Erfarenhet VARCHAR (5),
FK_tblBana_Id VARCHAR (15) references tblBana (BanNR)
);
INSERT INTO tblBana (BanNR)
Values (3);
INSERT INTO tblDomare (PersNR,fNamn,eNamn,Erfarenhet,FK_tblBana_Id)
Values (8508284173,'Johanna','Backman',1,3);
or you can use this
SELECT fk_id FROM dbo.tableA
Except
SELECT fk_id From dbo.tableB
and just FYI, in case you do all of your data reference checks and find no bad data...apparently it is not possible to create a foreign key constraint between two tables and fields where those fields are the primary key in both tables! Do not ask me how I know this.
I would like to add a constraint which prevents adding a value to a column if the value exists in the primary key column of another table. Is this possible?
EDIT:
Table: MasterParts
MasterPartNumber (Primary Key)
Description
....
Table: AlternateParts
MasterPartNumber (Composite Primary Key, Foreign Key to MasterParts.MasterPartNumber)
AlternatePartNumber (Composite Primary Key)
Problem - Alternate part numbers for each master part number must not themselves exist in the master parts table.
EDIT 2:
Here is an example:
MasterParts
MasterPartNumber Decription MinLevel MaxLevel ReOderLevel
010-00820-50 Garmin GTN™ 750 1 5 2
AlternateParts
MasterPartNumber AlternatePartNumber
010-00820-50 0100082050
010-00820-50 GTN750
only way I could think of solving this would be writing a checking function(not sure what language you are working with), or trying to play around with table relationships to ensure that it's unique
Why not have a single "part" table with an "is master part" flag and then have an "alternate parts" table that maps a "master" part to one or more "alternate" parts?
Here's one way to do it without procedural code. I've deliberately left out ON UPDATE CASCADE and ON DELETE CASCADE, but in production I'd might use both. (But I'd severely limit who's allowed to update and delete part numbers.)
-- New tables
create table part_numbers (
pn varchar(50) primary key,
pn_type char(1) not null check (pn_type in ('m', 'a')),
unique (pn, pn_type)
);
create table part_numbers_master (
pn varchar(50) primary key,
pn_type char(1) not null default 'm' check (pn_type = 'm'),
description varchar(100) not null,
foreign key (pn, pn_type) references part_numbers (pn, pn_type)
);
create table part_numbers_alternate (
pn varchar(50) primary key,
pn_type char(1) not null default 'a' check (pn_type = 'a'),
foreign key (pn, pn_type) references part_numbers (pn, pn_type)
);
-- Now, your tables.
create table masterparts (
master_part_number varchar(50) primary key references part_numbers_master,
min_level integer not null default 0 check (min_level >= 0),
max_level integer not null default 0 check (max_level >= min_level),
reorder_level integer not null default 0
check ((reorder_level < max_level) and (reorder_level >= min_level))
);
create table alternateparts (
master_part_number varchar(50) not null references part_numbers_master (pn),
alternate_part_number varchar(50) not null references part_numbers_alternate (pn),
primary key (master_part_number, alternate_part_number)
);
-- Some test data
insert into part_numbers values
('010-00820-50', 'm'),
('0100082050', 'a'),
('GTN750', 'a');
insert into part_numbers_master values
('010-00820-50', 'm', 'Garmin GTN™ 750');
insert into part_numbers_alternate (pn) values
('0100082050'),
('GTN750');
insert into masterparts values
('010-00820-50', 1, 5, 2);
insert into alternateparts values
('010-00820-50', '0100082050'),
('010-00820-50', 'GTN750');
In practice, I'd build updatable views for master parts and for alternate parts, and I'd limit client access to the views. The updatable views would be responsible for managing inserts, updates, and deletes. (Depending on your company's policies, you might use stored procedures instead of updatable views.)
Your design is perfect.
But SQL isn't very helpful when you try to implement such a design. There is no declarative way in SQL to enforce your business rule. You'll have to write two triggers, one for inserts into masterparts, checking the new masterpart identifier doesn't yet exist as an alias, and the other one for inserts of aliases checking that the new alias identifier doesn't yet identiy a masterpart.
Or you can do this in the application, which is worse than triggers, from the data integrity point of view.
(If you want to read up on how to enforce constraints of arbitrary complexity within an SQL engine, best coverage I have seen of the topic is in the book "Applied Mathematics for Database Professionals")
Apart that it sounds like a possibly poor design,
You in essence want values spanning two columns in different tables, to be unique.
In order to utilize DBs native capability to check for uniqueness, you can create a 3rd, helper column, which will contain a copy of all the values inside the wanted two columns. And that column will have uniqueness constraint. So for each new value added to one of your target columns, you need to add the same value to the helper column. In order for this to be an inner DB constraint, you can add this by a trigger.
And again, needing to do the above, sounds like an evidence for a poor design.
--
Edit:
Regarding your edit:
You say " Alternate part numbers for each master part number must not themselves exist in the master parts table."
This itself is a design decision, which you don't explain.
I don't know enough about the domain of your problem, but:
If you think of master and alternate parts, as totally different things, there is no reason why you may want "Alternate part numbers for each master part number must not themselves exist in the master parts table". Otherwise, you have a common notion of "parts" be it master or alternate. This means they need to be in the same table, and column.
If the second is true, you need something like this:
table "parts"
columns:
id - pk
is_master - boolean (assuming a part can not be master and alternate at the same time)
description - text
This tables role is to list and describe the parts.
Then you have several ways to denote which part is alternate to which. It depends on whether a part can be alternate to more than one part. And it sounds that anyway one master part can have several alternates.
You can do it in the same table, or create another one.
If same: add column: alternate_to, which will be null for master parts, and will have a foreign key into the id column of the same table.
Otherwise create a table, say "alternatives" with: master_id, alternate_id both referencing with a foreign key to the parts table.
(The first above assumes that a part cannot be alternate to more than one other part. If this is not true, the second will work anyway)
i have two tables:
CREATE TABLE "public"."auctions" (
"id" VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
"auction_value_key" VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
"ctime" TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE NOT NULL,
"mtime" TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT "pk_XXXX2" PRIMARY KEY("id"),
);
and
CREATE TABLE "public"."auction_values" (
"id" NUMERIC DEFAULT nextval('default_seq'::regclass) NOT NULL,
"fk_auction_value_key" VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
"key" VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
"value" TEXT,
"ctime" TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE NOT NULL,
"mtime" TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT "pk_XXXX1" PRIMARY KEY("id"),
);
if i want to create a many-to-many relationship on the auction_value_key like this:
ALTER TABLE "public"."auction_values"
ADD CONSTRAINT "auction_values_fk" FOREIGN KEY ("fk_auction_value_key")
REFERENCES "public"."auctions"("auction_value_key")
ON DELETE NO ACTION
ON UPDATE NO ACTION
NOT DEFERRABLE;
i get this SQL error:
ERROR: there is no unique constraint matching given keys for referenced table "auctions"
Question:
As you might see, i want "auction_values" to be be "reused" by different auctions without duplicating them for every auction... So i don't want a key relation on the "id" field in the auctions table...
Am i thinking wrong here or what is the deal? ;)
Thanks
You need an extra table to model a many-to-many relationship. It will contain the mappings between auctions and auction_values. It needs two columns: auction_id and auction_value_id.
If you want the auction_values to be reused by different auctions, you should declare a constraint the other way round:
ALTER TABLE auctions
ADD CONSTRAINT fk_auction_values
FOREIGN KEY (auction_value_key)
REFERENCES auction_values (id)
Quoting the wikipedia
In the context of relational
databases, a foreign key is a
referential constraint between two
tables.1 The foreign key identifies
a column or a set of columns in one
(referencing) table that refers to set
of columns in another (referenced)
table. The columns in the referencing
table must be the primary key or other
candidate key in the referenced table.
The values in one row of the
referencing columns must occur in a
single row in the referenced table.
Thus, a row in the referencing table
cannot contain values that don't exist
in the referenced table (except
potentially NULL). This way references
can be made to link information
together and it is an essential part
of database normalization. Multiple
rows in the referencing table may
refer to the same row in the
referenced table. Most of the time, it
reflects the one (master table, or
referenced table) to many (child
table, or referencing table)
relationship.
As Quassnoi points out, it sounds as if you want to have multiple rows in auctions reference single rows in auction_values.
For that the master or referenced table is auction_values and child or referencing table is auction_values.
If on the other hand Alex is right and you want to reference multiple rows in the auction_values you will need another table.
This table will help you convert the many-to-many relationship (which can not be directly realized on the physical database level) to two one-to-many relationships.
Generally you could have this table store ids from the two starting tables and in this way you can associate any combination of the records from auction_values and auctions.
However, this might be too general and you might actually be after a table auction_value_keys (auction_value_key)
I'm building a database that must work on MySQL, PostgreSQL, and SQLite. One of my tables has a two-column primary key:
CREATE TABLE tournament (
state CHAR(2) NOT NULL,
year INT NOT NULL,
etc...,
PRIMARY KEY(state, year)
);
I want a reference to the tournament table from another table, but I want this reference to be nullable. Here's how I might do it, imagining that a winner doesn't necessarily have a tournament:
CREATE TABLE winner (
name VARCHAR NOT NULL,
state CHAR(2) NULL,
year INT NULL
);
If state is null but year is not, or vice-versa, the table would be inconsistent. I believe the following FOREIGN KEY constraint fixes it:
ALTER TABLE winner ADD CONSTRAINT FOREIGN KEY fk (name, state) REFERENCES tournament (name, state);
Is this the proper way of enforcing consistency? Is this schema properly normalized?
Rule #1: ALWAYS SAY THE DATABASE YOU'RE USING
Ok, I'm going to suggest you look at the ON DELETE clause, and the MATCH clause. Because, Pg is fairly SQL compliant I'll point you to the current docs on CREATE TABLE.
Excerpt:
These clauses specify a foreign key
constraint, which requires that a
group of one or more columns of the
new table must only contain values
that match values in the referenced
column(s) of some row of the
referenced table. If refcolumn is
omitted, the primary key of the
reftable is used. The referenced
columns must be the columns of a
unique or primary key constraint in
the referenced table. Note that
foreign key constraints cannot be
defined between temporary tables and
permanent tables.
A value inserted into the referencing
column(s) is matched against the
values of the referenced table and
referenced columns using the given
match type. There are three match
types: MATCH FULL, MATCH PARTIAL, and
MATCH SIMPLE, which is also the
default. MATCH FULL will not allow one
column of a multicolumn foreign key to
be null unless all foreign key columns
are null. MATCH SIMPLE allows some
foreign key columns to be null while
other parts of the foreign key are not
null. MATCH PARTIAL is not yet
implemented.
In addition, when the data in the
referenced columns is changed, certain
actions are performed on the data in
this table's columns. The ON DELETE
clause specifies the action to perform
when a referenced row in the
referenced table is being deleted.
Likewise, the ON UPDATE clause
specifies the action to perform when a
referenced column in the referenced
table is being updated to a new value.
If the row is updated, but the
referenced column is not actually
changed, no action is done.
Referential actions other than the NO
ACTION check cannot be deferred, even
if the constraint is declared
deferrable. There are the following
possible actions for each clause:
Also, there is a major exception here with MS SQL -- which doesn't permit partial matches (MATCH SIMPLE and MATCH PARTIAL) behaviors in foreign keys (defaults and enforces MATCH FULL). There are workarounds where you create a MATCH FULL index on the part of the table that IS NOT NULL for any of the composite key's constituents.