I Know there can't be more than 1 primary key in a table but what is the technical reason ?
Pulled directly from SO:
You can only have one primary key, but you can have multiple columns in your primary key.
You can also have Unique Indexes on your table, which will work a bit like a primary key in that they will enforce unique values, and will speed up querying of those values.
Primary in the context of Primary Key means that it's ranked first in importance. Therefore, there can only be one key. It's by definition.
It's also usually the key for which the index has the actual data attached to it, that is, the data is stored with the primary key index. Other indices contain only the data that's being indexed, and perhaps some Included Columns.
In fact E.F.Codd (the inventor of the Relational Database Model) [1] originated the term "primary key" to mean any number of keys of a relation - not just one. He made it clear that it was quite possible to have more than one such key. His suggestion was that the database designer could choose one key as a preferred identifier ("the primary key") - but in principle this was optional and such a choice was "arbitrary" (that was his word). Because all keys enjoy the same properties as each other there is no fundamental need to choose any one over another.
Later on [2] what Codd originally called primary keys became known as candidate keys and the one key singled out as the preferred one became known as the "primary" key. This was not really a fundamental shift however because a primary key means exactly the same as a candidate key. Since they are equivalent concepts it doesn't really mean anything important when we say there "must" only be one primary key. If you have more than one candidate key you could quite reasonably call more than one of them "primary" if you prefer because it doesn't make any logical or practical difference to the meaning and function of the database.
It has been argued (by me among others) that the idea of designating one key per table as "primary" is utterly superfluous and sometimes a positive hinderance to a good understanding of database design and data intgrity issues. However, the concept is so entrenched we are probably stuck with it.
So the proper answer to your question is "convention" and "convenience". There is no good technical reason at all.
[1] A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks (1970)
[2] E.g. in "Further Normalization of the Relational Data Base Model" (1971)
Well, it's called "primary" for a reason. As in, its the one key used to uniquely identify the record... and there "can be only one".
You could certainly mimick a second "primary" key by having an index placed on one or more other fields that are unique but for the purposes of your database server it's generally only necessary if your key isn't unique enough to cross database servers in a merge replication situation. (ie: multi master).
PRIMARY KEY is usually equivalent to UNIQUE INDEX NOT NULL. So you can effectively have multiple "primary keys" on a single table.
The primary key is the key which uniquely identifies that record.
I'm not sure if you're asking if a) there can be a single primary key spanning multiple columns, or b) if you can have multiple keys which uniquely identify the record.
The first is possible, known as a composite primary key.
The second is possible also, but only one is called the primary key.
Because the "primary" in "primary key" denotes its, mmm, singularity(?).
But if you need more, you can define UNIQUE keys which have quite the same behaviour.
The technical reason is that there can be only one primary. Otherwise it wouldn't be called so.
However a primary key can include several columns - see 7.5.2. Multiple-Column Indexes
The primary key is the one (of possibly many) unique identifiers of a particular row in a table. The other unique identifiers, which were not designated as the primary one, are hence often refereed to as secondary unique indexes.
Primary key allows us to uniquely identify each record in the table. You can have 2 primary keys in a table but they are called Composite Primary Keys. "When you define more than one column as your primary key on a table, it is called a composite primary key."
A primary key defines record uniqueness. To have two different measures of uniqueness can be problematic. For example, if you have primary keys A and B and you insert records where A is the same and B is different, then are those records the same or different? If you consider them different, then make your primary a composite of A and B. If you consider them the same record, then just use A or B as the primary key.
For non-clustered index we can create two index and are typically made on non-primary key columns used in JOIN, WHERE , ORDER BY clauses.
While in clustered index we have only one index and that on primary key. So if we have two primary keys there is ambiguity.
Also in referential intergrity there is ambiguity selecting one of the two primary keys.
Only one primary key possible on the table because primary key creates a clustered index on the table which stored data physically on the leaf node in ordered way based on that primary key column.
If we try to create one another primary key on that table then there will be one major problem related to the data.Because be can not store same data of the table in two different-2 order.
Related
I googled a lot, but I did not find the exact straight forward answer with an example.
Any example for this would be more helpful.
The primary key is a unique key in your table that you choose that best uniquely identifies a record in the table. All tables should have a primary key, because if you ever need to update or delete a record you need to know how to uniquely identify it.
A surrogate key is an artificially generated key. They're useful when your records essentially have no natural key (such as a Person table, since it's possible for two people born on the same date to have the same name, or records in a log, since it's possible for two events to happen such they they carry the same timestamp). Most often you'll see these implemented as integers in an automatically incrementing field, or as GUIDs that are generated automatically for each record. ID numbers are almost always surrogate keys.
Unlike primary keys, not all tables need surrogate keys, however. If you have a table that lists the states in America, you don't really need an ID number for them. You could use the state abbreviation as a primary key code.
The main advantage of the surrogate key is that they're easy to guarantee as unique. The main disadvantage is that they don't have any meaning. There's no meaning that "28" is Wisconsin, for example, but when you see 'WI' in the State column of your Address table, you know what state you're talking about without needing to look up which state is which in your State table.
A surrogate key is a made up value with the sole purpose of uniquely identifying a row. Usually, this is represented by an auto incrementing ID.
Example code:
CREATE TABLE Example
(
SurrogateKey INT IDENTITY(1,1) -- A surrogate key that increments automatically
)
A primary key is the identifying column or set of columns of a table. Can be surrogate key or any other unique combination of columns (for example a compound key). MUST be unique for any row and cannot be NULL.
Example code:
CREATE TABLE Example
(
PrimaryKey INT PRIMARY KEY -- A primary key is just an unique identifier
)
All keys are identifiers used as surrogates for the things they identify. E.F.Codd explained the concept of system-assigned surrogates as follows [1]:
Database users may cause the system to generate or delete a surrogate,
but they have no control over its value, nor is its value ever
displayed to them.
This is what is commonly referred to as a surrogate key. The definition is immediately problematic however because Codd was assuming that such a feature would be provided by the DBMS. DBMSs in general have no such feature. The keys are normally visible to at least some DBMS users as, for obvious reasons, they have to be. The concept of a surrogate has therefore morphed slightly in usage. The term is generally used in the data management profession to mean a key that is not exposed and used as an identifier in the business domain. Note that this is essentially unrelated to how the key is generated or how "artificial" it is perceived to be. All keys consist of symbols invented by humans or machines. The only possible significance of the term surrogate therefore relates how the key is used, not how it is created or what its values are.
[1] Extending the database relational model to capture more meaning, E.F.Codd, 1979
This is a great treatment describing the various kinds of keys:
http://www.agiledata.org/essays/keys.html
A surrogate key is typically a numeric value. Within SQL Server, Microsoft allows you to define a column with an identity property to help generate surrogate key values.
The PRIMARY KEY constraint uniquely identifies each record in a database table.
Primary keys must contain UNIQUE values.
A primary key column cannot contain NULL values.
Most tables should have a primary key, and each table can have only ONE primary key.
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3922066/SQL-Server-Natural-Key-Verses-Surrogate-Key.htm
I think Michelle Poolet describes it in a very clear way:
A surrogate key is an artificially produced value, most often a
system-managed, incrementing counter whose values can range from 1 to
n, where n represents a table's maximum number of rows. In SQL Server,
you create a surrogate key by assigning an identity property to a
column that has a number data type.
http://sqlmag.com/business-intelligence/surrogate-key-vs-natural-key
It usually helps you use a surrogate key when you change a composite key with an identity column.
If a table has two columns that act as a composite candidate key (uniquely identifying each row), is it a good practice to create a surrogate key and use it as the primary key instead?
The reason would be: foreign keys referencing it would be simpler to read (referencing one column instead of two).
Also, if a surrogate key is used, should I create a unique constraint on the two columns previously mentioned?
You have actually asked several questions:
If there are multiple columns (or sets of columns) that are unique from the logical standpoint, should I make a key on all of them?
When there are multiple keys, how do I decide which to make primary?
If there is already a natural key (or keys), can I replace it (them) with a surrogate key?
If there is already a natural key (or keys), should I add a surrogate key?
And here are the answers:
Yes.
From the logical standpoint, all keys are equivalent. However, there may be physical considerations in favor of making one of them primary over the others.
No.
It depends. More on that here.
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've recently started developing my first serious application which uses a SQL database, and I'm using phpMyAdmin to set up the tables. There are a couple optional "features" I can give various columns, and I'm not entirely sure what they do:
Primary Key
Index
I know what a PK is for and how to use it, but I guess my question with regards to that is why does one need one - how is it different from merely setting a column to "Unique", other than the fact that you can only have one PK? Is it just to let the programmer know that this value uniquely identifies the record? Or does it have some special properties too?
I have no idea what "Index" does - in fact, the only times I've ever seen it in use are (1) that my primary keys seem to be indexed, and (2) I heard that indexing is somehow related to performance; that you want indexed columns, but not too many. How does one decide which columns to index, and what exactly does it do?
edit: should one index colums one is likely to want to ORDER BY?
Thanks a lot,
Mala
Primary key is usually used to create a numerical 'id' for your records, and this id column is automatically incremented.
For example, if you have a books table with an id field, where the id is the primary key and is also set to auto_increment (Under 'Extra in phpmyadmin), then when you first add a book to the table, the id for that will become 1'. The next book's id would automatically be '2', and so on. Normally, every table should have at least one primary key to help identifying and finding records easily.
Indexes are used when you need to retrieve certain information from a table regularly. For example, if you have a users table, and you will need to access the email column a lot, then you can add an index on email, and this will cause queries accessing the email to be faster.
However there are also downsides for adding unnecessary indexes, so add this only on the columns that really do need to be accessed more than the others. For example, UPDATE, DELETE and INSERT queries will be a little slower the more indexes you have, as MySQL needs to store extra information for each indexed column. More info can be found at this page.
Edit: Yes, columns that need to be used in ORDER BY a lot should have indexes, as well as those used in WHERE.
The primary key is basically a unique, indexed column that acts as the "official" ID of rows in that table. Most importantly, it is generally used for foreign key relationships, i.e. if another table refers to a row in the first, it will contain a copy of that row's primary key.
Note that it's possible to have a composite primary key, i.e. one that consists of more than one column.
Indexes improve lookup times. They're usually tree-based, so that looking up a certain row via an index takes O(log(n)) time rather than scanning through the full table.
Generally, any column in a large table that is frequently used in WHERE, ORDER BY or (especially) JOIN clauses should have an index. Since the index needs to be updated for evey INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE, it slows down those operations. If you have few writes and lots of reads, then index to your hear's content. If you have both lots of writes and lots of queries that would require indexes on many columns, then you have a big problem.
The difference between a primary key and a unique key is best explained through an example.
We have a table of users:
USER_ID number
NAME varchar(30)
EMAIL varchar(50)
In that table the USER_ID is the primary key. The NAME is not unique - there are a lot of John Smiths and Muhammed Khans in the world. The EMAIL is necessarily unique, otherwise the worldwide email system wouldn't work. So we put a unique constraint on EMAIL.
Why then do we need a separate primary key? Three reasons:
the numeric key is more efficient
when used in foreign key
relationships as it takes less space
the email can change (for example
swapping provider) but the user is
still the same; rippling a change of
a primary key value throughout a schema
is always a nightmare
it is always a bad idea to use
sensitive or private information as
a foreign key
In the relational model, any column or set of columns that is guaranteed to be both present and unique in the table can be called a candidate key to the table. "Present" means "NOT NULL". It's common practice in database design to designate one of the candidate keys as the primary key, and to use references to the primary key to refer to the entire row, or to the subject matter item that the row describes.
In SQL, a PRIMARY KEY constraint amounts to a NOT NULL constraint for each primary key column, and a UNIQUE constraint for all the primary key columns taken together. In practice many primary keys turn out to be single columns.
For most DBMS products, a PRIMARY KEY constraint will also result in an index being built on the primary key columns automatically. This speeds up the systems checking activity when new entries are made for the primary key, to make sure the new value doesn't duplicate an existing value. It also speeds up lookups based on the primary key value and joins between the primary key and a foreign key that references it. How much speed up occurs depends on how the query optimizer works.
Originally, relational database designers looked for natural keys in the data as given. In recent years, the tendency has been to always create a column called ID, an integer as the first column and the primary key of every table. The autogenerate feature of the DBMS is used to ensure that this key will be unique. This tendency is documented in the "Oslo design standards". It isn't necessarily relational design, but it serves some immediate needs of the people who follow it. I do not recommend this practice, but I recognize that it is the prevalent practice.
An index is a data structure that allows for rapid access to a few rows in a table, based on a description of the columns of the table that are indexed. The index consists of copies of certain table columns, called index keys, interspersed with pointers to the table rows. The pointers are generally hidden from the DBMS users. Indexes work in tandem with the query optimizer. The user specifies in SQL what data is being sought, and the optimizer comes up with index strategies and other strategies for translating what is being sought into a stategy for finding it. There is some kind of organizing principle, such as sorting or hashing, that enables an index to be used for fast lookups, and certain other uses. This is all internal to the DBMS, once the database builder has created the index or declared the primary key.
Indexes can be built that have nothing to do with the primary key. A primary key can exist without an index, although this is generally a very bad idea.
What are the down sides of using a composite/compound primary key?
Could cause more problems for normalisation (2NF, "Note that when a 1NF table has no composite candidate keys (candidate keys consisting of more than one attribute), the table is automatically in 2NF")
More unnecessary data duplication. If your composite key consists of 3 columns, you will need to create the same 3 columns in every table, where it is used as a foreign key.
Generally avoidable with the help of surrogate keys (read about their advantages and disadvantages)
I can imagine a good scenario for composite key -- in a table representing a N:N relation, like Students - Classes, and the key in the intermediate table will be (StudentID, ClassID). But if you need to store more information about each pair (like a history of all marks of a student in a class) then you'll probably introduce a surrogate key.
There's nothing wrong with having a compound key per se, but a primary key should ideally be as small as possible (in terms of number of bytes required). If the primary key is long then this will cause non-clustered indexes to be bloated.
Bear in mind that the order of the columns in the primary key is important. The first column should be as selective as possible i.e. as 'unique' as possible. Searches on the first column will be able to seek, but searches just on the second column will have to scan, unless there is also a non-clustered index on the second column.
I think this is a specialisation of the synthetic key debate (whether to use meaningful keys or an arbitrary synthetic primary key). I come down almost completely on the synthetic key side of this debate for a number of reasons. These are a few of the more pertinent ones:
You have to keep dependent child
tables on the end of a foriegn key
up to date. If you change the the
value of one of the primary key
fields (which can happen - see
below) you have to somehow change
all of the dependent tables where
their PK value includes these
fields. This is a bit tricky
because changing key values will
invalidate FK relationships with
child tables so you may (depending
on the constraint validation options
available on your platform) have to
resort to tricks like copying the
record to a new one and deleting the
old records.
On a deep schema the keys can get
quite wide - I've seen 8 columns
once.
Changes in primary key values can be
troublesome to identify in ETL
processes loading off the system.
The example I once had occasion to
see was an MIS application
extracting from an insurance
underwriting system. On some
occasions a policy entry would be
re-used by the customer, changing
the policy identifier. This was a
part of the primary key of the
table. When this happens the
warehouse load is not aware of what
the old value was so it cannot match
the new data to it. The developer
had to go searching through audit
logs to identify the changed value.
Most of the issues with non-synthetic primary keys revolve around issues when PK values of records change. The most useful applications of non-synthetic values are where a database schema is intended to be used, such as an M.I.S. application where report writers are using the tables directly. In this case short values with fixed domains such as currency codes or dates might reasonably be placed directly on the table for convenience.
I would recommend a generated primary key in those cases with a unique not null constraint on the natural composite key.
If you use the natural key as primary then you will most likely have to reference both values in foreign key references to make sure you are identifying the correct record.
Take the example of a table with two candidate keys: one simple (single-column) and one compound (multi-column). Your question in that context seems to be, "What disadvantage may I suffer if I choose to promote one key to be 'primary' and I choose the compound key?"
First, consider whether you actually need to promote a key at all: "the very existence of the PRIMARY KEY in SQL seems to be an historical accident of some kind. According to author Chris Date the earliest incarnations of SQL didn't have any key constraints and PRIMARY KEY was only later addded to the SQL standards. The designers of the standard obviously took the term from E.F.Codd who invented it, even though Codd's original notion had been abandoned by that time! (Codd originally proposed that foreign keys must only reference one key - the primary key - but that idea was forgotten and ignored because it was widely recognised as a pointless limitation)." [source: David Portas' Blog: Down with Primary Keys?
Second, what criteria would you apply to choose which key in a table should be 'primary'?
In SQL, the choice of key PRIMARY KEY is arbitrary and product specific. In ACE/Jet (a.k.a. MS Access) the two main and often competing factors is whether you want to use PRIMARY KEY to favour clustering on disk or whether you want the columns comprising the key to appears as bold in the 'Relationships' picture in the MS Access user interface; I'm in the minority by thinking that index strategy trumps pretty picture :) In SQL Server, you can specify the clustered index independently of the PRIMARY KEY and there seems to be no product-specific advantage afforded. The only remaining advantage seems to be the fact you can omit the columns of the PRIMARY KEY when creating a foreign key in SQL DDL, being a SQL-92 Standard behaviour and anyhow doesn't seem such a big deal to me (perhaps another one of the things they added to the Standard because it was a feature already widespread in SQL products?) So, it's not a case of looking for drawbacks, rather, you should be looking to see what advantage, if any, your SQL product gives the PRIMARY KEY. Put another way, the only drawback to choosing the wrong key is that you may be missing out on a given advantage.
Third, are you rather alluding to using an artificial/synthetic/surrogate key to implement in your physical model a candidate key from your logical model because you are concerned there will be performance penalties if you use the natural key in foreign keys and table joins? That's an entirely different question and largely depends on your 'religious' stance on the issue of natural keys in SQL.
Need more specificity.
Taken too far, it can overcomplicate Inserts (Every key MUST exist) and documentation and your joined reads could be suspect if incomplete.
Sometimes it can indicate a flawed data model (is a composite key REALLY what's described by the data?)
I don't believe there is a performance cost...it just can go really wrong really easily.
when you se it on a diagram are less readable
when you use it on a query join are less
readable
when you use it on a foregein key
you have to add a check constraint
about all the attribute have to be
null or not null (if only one is
null the key is not checked)
usualy need more storage when use it
as foreign key
some tool doesn't manage composite
key
The main downside of using a compound primary key, is that you will confuse the hell out of typical ORM code generators.