What is the real difference between one-to-many and many-to-one relationship? It is only reversed, kind of?
I can't find any 'good-and-easy-to-understand' tutorial about this topic other than this one: SQL for Beginners: Part 3 - Database Relationships
Yes, it is vice versa. It depends on which side of the relationship the entity is present on.
For example, if one department can employ several employees then department to employee is a one-to-many relationship (1 department employs many employees), while employee to department relationship is many-to-one (many employees work in one department).
More info on the relationship types:
Database Relationships - IBM DB2 documentation
From this page about Database Terminology
Most relations between tables are one-to-many.
Example:
One area can be the habitat of many readers.
One reader can have many subscriptions.
One newspaper can have many subscriptions.
A Many to One relation is the same as one-to-many, but from a different viewpoint.
Many readers live in one area.
Many subscriptions can be of one and the same reader.
Many subscriptions are for one and the same newspaper.
What is the real difference between one-to-many and many-to-one relationship?
There are conceptual differences between these terms that should help you visualize the data and also possible differences in the generated schema that should be fully understood. Mostly the difference is one of perspective though.
In a one-to-many relationship, the local table has one row that may be associated with many rows in another table. In the example from SQL for beginners, one Customer may be associated to many Orders.
In the opposite many-to-one relationship, the local table may have many rows that are associated with one row in another table. In our example, many Orders may be associated to one Customer. This conceptual difference is important for mental representation.
In addition, the schema which supports the relationship may be represented differently in the Customer and Order tables. For example, if the customer has columns id and name:
id,name
1,Bill Smith
2,Jim Kenshaw
Then for a Order to be associated with a Customer, many SQL implementations add to the Order table a column which stores the id of the associated Customer (in this schema customer_id:
id,date,amount,customer_id
10,20160620,12.34,1
11,20160620,7.58,1
12,20160621,158.01,2
In the above data rows, if we look at the customer_id id column, we see that Bill Smith (customer-id #1) has 2 orders associated with him: one for $12.34 and one for $7.58. Jim Kenshaw (customer-id #2) has only 1 order for $158.01.
What is important to realize is that typically the one-to-many relationship doesn't actually add any columns to the table that is the "one". The Customer has no extra columns which describe the relationship with Order. In fact the Customer might also have a one-to-many relationship with ShippingAddress and SalesCall tables and yet have no additional columns added to the Customer table.
However, for a many-to-one relationship to be described, often an id column is added to the "many" table which is a foreign-key to the "one" table -- in this case a customer_id column is added to the Order. To associated order #10 for $12.34 to Bill Smith, we assign the customer_id column to Bill Smith's id 1.
However, it is also possible for there to be another table that describes the Customer and Order relationship, so that no additional fields need to be added to the Order table. Instead of adding a customer_id field to the Order table, there could be Customer_Order table that contains keys for both the Customer and Order.
customer_id,order_id
1,10
1,11
2,12
In this case, the one-to-many and many-to-one is all conceptual since there are no schema changes between them. Which mechanism depends on your schema and SQL implementation.
Hope this helps.
SQL
In SQL, there is only one kind of relationship, it is called a Reference. (Your front end may do helpful or confusing things [such as in some of the Answers], but that is a different story.)
A Foreign Key in one table (the referencing table)
References
a Primary Key in another table (the referenced table)
In SQL terms, Bar references Foo
Not the other way around
CREATE TABLE Foo (
Foo CHAR(10) NOT NULL, -- primary key
Name CHAR(30) NOT NULL
CONSTRAINT PK -- constraint name
PRIMARY KEY (Foo) -- pk
)
CREATE TABLE Bar (
Bar CHAR(10) NOT NULL, -- primary key
Foo CHAR(10) NOT NULL, -- foreign key to Foo
Name CHAR(30) NOT NULL
CONSTRAINT PK -- constraint name
PRIMARY KEY (Bar), -- pk
CONSTRAINT Foo_HasMany_Bars -- constraint name
FOREIGN KEY (Foo) -- fk in (this) referencing table
REFERENCES Foo(Foo) -- pk in referenced table
)
Since Foo.Foo is a Primary Key, it is unique, there is only one row for any given value of Foo
Since Bar.Foo is a Reference, a Foreign Key, and there is no unique index on it, there can be many rows for any given value of Foo
Therefore the relation Foo::Bar is one-to-many
Now you can perceive (look at) the relation the other way around, Bar::Foo is many-to-one
But do not let that confuse you: for any one Bar row, there is just one Foo row that it References
In SQL, that is all we have. That is all that is necessary.
What is the real difference between one to many and many to one relationship?
There is only one relation, therefore there is no difference. Perception (from one "end" or the other "end") or reading it backwards, does not change the relation.
Cardinality
Cardinality is declared first in the data model, which means Logical and Physical (the intent), and then in the implementation (the intent realised).
One to zero-to-many
In SQL that (the above) is all that is required.
One to one-to-many
You need a Transaction to enforce the one in the Referencing table.
One to zero-to-one
You need in Bar:
CONSTRAINT AK -- constraint name
UNIQUE (Foo) -- unique column, which makes it an Alternate Key
One to one
You need a Transaction to enforce the one in the Referencing table.
Many-to-Many
There is no such thing at the Physical level (recall, there is only one type of relation in SQL).
At the early Logical levels during the modelling exercise, it is convenient to draw such a relation. Before the model gets close to implementation, it had better be elevated to using only things that can exist. Such a relation is resolved by implementing an Associative Table at the physical [DDL] level.
There is no difference. It's just a matter of language and preference as to which way round you state the relationship.
Answer to your first question is : both are similar,
Answer to your second question is: one-to-many --> a MAN(MAN table) may have more than one wife(WOMEN table) many-to-one --> more than one women have married one MAN.
Now if you want to relate this relation with two tables MAN and WOMEN, one MAN table row may have many relations with rows in the WOMEN table. hope it clear.
One-to-Many and Many-to-One are similar in Multiplicity but not Aspect (i.e. Directionality).
The mapping of Associations between entity classes and the Relationships between tables. There are two categories of Relationships:
Multiplicity (ER term: cardinality)
One-to-one relationships (abbreviated 1:1): Example Husband and Wife
One-to-Many relationships (abbreviated 1:N): Example Mother and Children
Many-to-Many relationships (abbreviated M:N): Example Student and Subject
Directionality : Not affect on mapping but makes difference on how we can access data.
Uni-directional relationships: A relationship field or property that refers to the other entity.
Bi-directional relationships: Each entity has a relationship field or property that refers to the other entity.
This is an excellent question, according to my experience, in ERD diagrams and relational databases direction is implied. In RDBMS you always define Many-To->One (trivial case One-To->One) relationships. The Many side of the relationship, a.k.a children, references the One side, a.k.a parent and you implement this with a Foreign Key constraint. Technically speaking you have to access an index, fetch the Primary Key record of the One side and then visit this record to get more information.
You cannot do this the other way around unless we are speaking about Object-Relational DBMS such as Postgres, Intersystems Cache, etc. These DBMS allow you to define a bi-directional relationship between the two entities (tables). In that case accessing records the other way around, i.e. One--To-->Many is achieved by using an array of references (children). In ORMs you have classes that reference each other the same way we described here.
WARNING: Most RDBMS in the IT market are NOT relational database management systems in the strict sense, think about null values, duplicate records etc, many of these allowed features break the definition of what a Relation is.
There's no practical difference. Just use the relationship which makes the most sense given the way you see your problem as Devendra illustrated.
One-to-many and Many-to-one relationship is talking about the same logical relationship, eg an Owner may have many Homes, but a Home can only have one Owner.
So in this example Owner is the One, and Homes are the Many.
Each Home always has an owner_id (eg the Foreign Key) as an extra column.
The difference in implementation between these two, is which table defines the relationship.
In One-to-Many, the Owner is where the relationship is defined. Eg, owner1.homes lists all the homes with owner1's owner_id
In Many-to-One, the Home is where the relationship is defined. Eg, home1.owner lists owner1's owner_id.
I dont actually know in what instance you would implement the many-to-one arrangement, because it seems a bit redundant as you already know the owner_id. Perhaps its related to cleanness of deletions and changes.
---One to Many--- A Parent can have two or more children.
---Many to one--- Those 3 children can have a single Parent
Both are similar. This can be used according to the need. If you want to find children for a particular parent, then you can go with One-To-Many. Or else, want to find parents for twins, you may go with Many-To-One.
The easiest explanation I can give for this relationship is by piggybacking on evendra D. Chavan'sanswer.
Using the department and employee relationship
A department can have multiple employees, so from the employee side, it's one-to-many relationship, and from the department side it's many-to-one relationship
But if an employee can also belong to more than one department, we can also say from the employee side it's now many as opposed to one, so the relationship becomes many-to-many
In order words, a simple understanding would be, we can state that a relationship is many-to-many if one-to-many can be viewed from both sides
that is if;
one employee can belong to many departments (one-to-many)
one department can have many employees (one-to-many)
I am new to SQL and only have experience using SQLAlchemy. The documentation on relationships in SQLAlchemy does a good job explaining this, in my opinion.
You may find some clarity by reading this part
Also, I had to come up with my own example to think through this. I'll try to explain without writing a bunch of code for simplicity.
table Vehicle
column (name)
table Manufacturer
column (name)
A Vehicle can only have One manufacturer (Ford, Tesla, BMW etc.)
Manufacturers can make many Vehicles
Ford
Ford makes Mustang
Ford makes F-150
Ford makes Focus
Tesla
Tesla makes Model S
Tesla makes Model X
Tesla makes Roadster
When looking at the database rows you will want to decide if you want a column that references the other side of the relationship. This is where the SQLAlchemy documentation brings in the difference between backref vs. back_populates. I understand that is the difference between having a column in the table to reference the other side of the relationship or not having a column to reference the other side.
I hope this helps, and even more so, I hope I am accurate in the way I learned and understand this.
I have read most of the answer. The problem is not the relationship here at all. If you look at One to Many or Many to One conceptually, it is just a reversible relationship. HOWEVER, while implementing the concept in your software or application it differs a lot.
In case of Many to One, we often desire the table that has Many aspect to be written first and we desire it to associate with the table containing One aspect. If you convert Many to One concept into One to Many, you will have hard time writing the One aspect table first in your code. Since, the relationship is defined while you engineer the database, Many aspect table will seek for the One aspect table data for integrity. So if you are planning to do it by using foreign key -> unique key or foreign key -> primary key, Many to One implementation will be different even if you consider it as a One to Many.
I personally make associations without using actual relationship concepts in many cases. There is no such boundaries as to use Database concept to form relationship every time. Just make sure that your database integrity is maintained as you want, it is indexed properly for your search needs and is decently normalized.
one-to-many has parent class contains n number of childrens so it is a collection mapping.
many-to-one has n number of childrens contains one parent so it is a object mapping
Related
I have the following problem that I have multiple scenarios that might be right or wrong, I've been searching on this for a while and I didn't find a specific answer for my problem:
Doctor Clinic Example:
We have doctor, patient, treatment, treatment-type
Doctor: id, name....
Patient: id, name...
Treatment: date, cost
Treatment-Type: id, name
Doctor can do multiple treatments, and Patient can also do multiple treatments, so they are connected with Treatment with(1-N) relationship.
Treatment entity is a weak entity, as it cannot be defined in the absence of Doctor or Patient, so my question is, when we convert this ERD to actual tables, which is the correct (or the best-practice) scenario?
1 - doctor-id, patient-id cannot define the Treatment table uniquely, so we add to Treatment table the treatment-id field, and the PK is (doctor-id, patient-id, treatment-id).
2 - We add treatment-id field, and the PK is(treatment-id).
3 - The PK will be (doctor-id, patient-id, date).
I struggled finding if 'date' can be part of PK or not, and also I struggled if I can create an unique ID for weak entity
Thanks in advance.
Weak entity sets are entity sets that are partially identified by a parent entity set's primary key. A weak entity set necessarily depends on its parent entity set for existence (we say it participates totally in its identifying relationship), but not everything with an existence dependency is a weak entity set. Regular entity sets can also participate totally in one or more relationships. So, it depends on how you identify an entity set. See also my answer to the question "is optionality (mandatory, optional) and participation (total, partial) are same?"
An entity set that is uniquely identified by its own attributes is a regular entity set. An entity set that is partially identified by a parent entity set's primary key is a weak entity set. An entity set that is fully identified by a parent entity set's primary key is a subtype.
You should also note that weak entity sets can only have one parent entity set according to the entity-relationship model as Chen described it. Being identified by multiple parent entity sets would make it a relationship rather than an entity set.
In some schema design tools, a different interpretation is used where tables are equated to entity sets and relationships equated to FK constraints, and an identifying relationship would be an FK that is part of the PK of a table. This approach is closer to the network data model than the entity-relationship model, despite having adopted much of ER's terminology.
Let's take a look at your examples:
In example 1, we should consider whether treatment-id is identifying on its own (i.e. a surrogate key) or only in combination with doctor-id and patient-id (i.e. an ordinal number). If it's a surrogate key, it would be a mistake to include doctor-id and patient-id in the PK, example 2 would be the right way of handling it. If it's an ordinal number, then it's basically the same as example 3 - two foreign entity keys and a value set in a primary key. I'll say more about that in my comments on example 3.
In example 2, treatment-id is a surrogate key which means Treatment is a regular entity set which participates totally in its relationships with Patient and Doctor. This would be my recommended solution, since it's the simplest.
In example 3, you have a primary key consisting of two foreign entity keys and a value set.
The entity-relationship model doesn't cover such relations - relations with a single entity key are called entity relations, and relations with multiple entity keys are called relationships relations. Value sets are only described as the codomains of attributes, not the domains. The ER model's inability to handle arbitrary relations are a consequence of artificial distinctions between entity sets vs value sets, and between attributes vs relationships. Other data modeling disciplines like the relational model and object-role modeling are complete and can handle any kinds of relations.
Back to example 3, despite the ER model's shortcomings, it's not invalid to create such a table/relation in an actual database. However, think about what the primary key means - can a patient receive only one treatment per day from the same doctor? I would think multiple treatments should be possible, in which case you might need to add another ordinal number, e.g. (doctor-id, patient-id, date, treatment-id). In that case, it might be simpler just to do (doctor-id, patient-id, treatment-id).
One argument against such composite/natural keys is that they add up - a many-to-many association between two relations, each with 3 columns in their primary keys, could have up to 6 columns in its primary key! That gets inconvenient quickly, but on the other hand, those columns are relevant related info that would otherwise need to be retrieved from joined tables if the association was identified by a surrogate key.
Sorry about the long answer, but I hope this covers all the fine points. Let me know if you have any questions.
If I have a design like the image above, and I wanted to have another table called "favourite fruit" that selects only one fruit for each person, would it make sense to have it as a weak entity of fruit table with a pk (personid UNIQUE, fruitid, artificialid UNIQUE) ?
Watch it/Stay tuned. Entities only exist in the diagram if they have properties/attributes, even in partitioning relationships (the "ISA" relationship).
[...] and I wanted to have another table called "favourite fruit [...]"
Be careful too. In the Conceptual Model, there are no tables, but entities. Just as entities, relationships can later become tables too. You may get confused to use such terminology at this stage.
It's just like the user reaanb said in the comments. Relations/relationships express exactly this: relationships between things (in case, entities). You need to remember why you build relationships in the diagram. Always ask yourself:
Why this relationship exists? Why I'm creating this between X and Y? Do I really need to persist this?
You can without any problems create more than one relationship between two entities, since they represent different things (relationships).
Now. If you know that a user has a favorite fruit, then you know that these two entities are related in some way. Therefore, without a doubt, we have a relationship.
In your case, if a user always has a favorite fruit, then we have a 1-N relationship, where the N part is in users, as a fruit can be the favorite of many users.
On the other hand, if a user may or may not have a favorite fruit and you do not want a field with nullable value, we have to define a N-N relationship. This relationship will become a table when decomposed. In this case you'll have a table with only two columns. The two are foreign keys for the two tables, "users" and "fruits", and they will also be a composite primary key on this table. For it is not possible to repeat records, in the case, more than one user with a favorite fruit, set the "user" column as unique.
If you have any questions, please comment and I will answer.
How do we translate something like this into SQL?
Entity A -thick line- relation -simple line- Entity B
Its easy enough to write any of the other connections, but somehow I can't seem to figure it out when it comes to 1 thick line and a simple one, like shown aboove
I have a primary key which is the date of a football season (Entity A - Season) and an entity (Entity B - Football team) which has 2 primary keys which are it's name and primary key of the Season entity. But 'cause of that doubt I have I can't relate them properly.
Relations do not typically form independent tables (diamonds). However, for a many-many relationship, you will usually see them in a separate tables. Depending on your notation (there are many) your diagram could represent a many-many relationship or a 1:1 relationship.
Strong entities (your rectangles) get tables.
In your ER diagram, you will also typically see attributes for each table in circles connected by lines to the entity itself. Those attributes are turned into columns for each table. Attributes which are underlined in the diagram are representative of a primary key for a particular entity.
Additional or strange constraints that aren't typically easily represented in an ER diagram are usually put as side notes.
To answer your question, you must know whether or not it's a many-many relationship; if so, you would create a SeasonClub table with the two different primary keys inside it.
Are there any hard and fast rules against creating a junction table out of a table's primary key? Say I have a table with a structure similar to:
In this instance there are a list of items that can be sold together, but should be marked as dangerous. Any one item can have multiple other items with which it is dangerous. All of the items are uniquely identified using their itemId. Is it OK to refer a table to itself in a many-to-many relationship? I've seen other examples on SO, but they weren't SQL specific really.
This is the correct design for your problem, as long as your combinations can only be two-item combos.
In database design a conceptual design that renders a relation in many-to-many form is converted into 2 one-to-many in physical design. Say for example a Student could take one or many courses and a course could have many students, so that's many to many. So, in actual design it would be a Student table, Course table then CourseTaken table that has both the primary key of Student and Course table thus creating 2 one to many relayionship. In your case altough the two tables are one and the same but you have the virtual third table to facilitate the 2 one to many relationship so that to me is still very viable approach.
Me and a database architect were having argument over if a table with a compound primary key with subtypes made sense relationally and if it was a good practice.
Say we have two tables Employee and Project. We create a composite table Employee_Project with a composite primary key back to Employee and Project.
Is there a valid way for Employee_Project to have subtypes? Or can you think of any scenario where a composite key table can have subtypes?
To me a composite key relationship is a 'Is A' relationship (Employee_Project is a Employee and a Project). Subtypes are also a 'Is A' relationship. So if you have a composite key with a subtype its two 'Is A' relationships in one sentence which makes me believe this is a bad practice.
Employee-project is a bit hard, but one can imagine something like this -- although I'm not much of a chemist.
Or something like this, which would require different legal forms (fields) for single person ownership vs joint (time-share).
Or like this, providing that different forms are needed for full time and temp.
Employee projects have subtypes if the candidate subtypes are
not utterly different, but
not exactly alike
That means that
Every employee project has some
attributes (columns) in common. So they're not utterly different.
Some employee projects have different
attributes than others. So they're not exactly alike.
The determination has to do with common and distinct attributes. It doesn't have anything to do with the number of columns in a candidate key. Do you have employee projects that are not utterly different, but not exactly alike?
The most common business supertype/subtype example concerns organizations and individuals. They're not utterly different.
Both have addresses.
Both have phone numbers.
Both can be plaintiffs and defendants
in court.
But they're not exactly alike.
Individuals can go to college.
Organizations can have a CEO.
Individuals can get married.
Individuals can have children.
Organizations (in the USA) can be liquidated.
So you can express individuals and organizations as subtypes of a supertype called, say, "Parties". The attributes all the subtypes have in common relate to the supertype.
Parties have addresses.
Parties have phone numbers.
Parties can be plaintiffs and defendants
in court.
Again, this has to do with attributes that are held in common, and attributes that are distinct. It has nothing to do with the number of columns in a candidate key.
To me a composite key relationship is
a 'Is A' relationship
(Employee_Project is a Employee and a
Project).
Database designers don't think that way. We think in terms of a table's predicate.
If an employee can have many projects and a project can have many employees it is a many-to-many join that RDBM's can only represent easily in one way (the way you have outlined above.) You can see in the ER diagram below (employee / departments is one of the classic many-to-many examples) that it does not have a separate ER component. The separate table is a leaky abstraction of RDBMS's (which is probably why you are having a hard time modeling it).
http://www.library.cornell.edu/elicensestudy/dlfdeliverables/fallforum2003/ERD_final.doc
Bridge Entities
When an instance of an entity may be related to multiple instances of another entity and vice versa, that is called a “many-to-many relationship.” In the example below, a supplier may provide many different products, and each type of product may be offered by many suppliers:
While this relationship model is perfectly valid, it cannot be translated directly into a relational database design. In a relational database, relationships are expressed by keys in a table column that point to the correct instance in the related table. A many-to-many relationship does not allow this relationship expression, because each record in each table might have to point to multiple records in the other table.
http://users.csc.calpoly.edu/~jdalbey/205/Lectures/ERD_image004.gif
Here they do not event bother with a separate box although they add in later (at this step it is a 'pure' ER diagram). It can also be explicitly represented with a box and a diamond superimposed on each other.