I'm using the shortcut, via properties. When i only need to generate one identifier, i set "(Is) identity" to "Yes", but i can't seem to do it for two rows. Please Help.
no possible with anything that is built in, you will have to roll your own with triggers but with that comes locking and concurrency....don't do it
A table can only have one identity column.
Why do you need two identifiers for one record?
Identifiers in an association table should be foreign keys to the identity values in the related tables, not autogenerated themselves, although you may have a single additional autogenerated identity key in the association table as well.
Related
I have the following partial database design:
All the tables are dependent on each other so the table bvd_docflow_subdocuments is dependent on the table bdd_docflow_subsets
and the table bvd_docflow_subdocuments is dependent on bvd_docflow_subsets. So I thought I could me smart and use foreign keys on every table (and ON DELETE CASCADE). However the FK are being drilldown how further I go in to the tables.
The problem is the table bvd_docflow_documents has no point having a reference to the 1docflow_documentset_id` PK / FK. Is there a way (and maybe my design is crappy) that only the table standing above it has an FK relationship between the tables and not all the tables above it.
Edit:
More explanation:
In the bvd_docflow_subsets table information is stored about objects to create documents. There is an relation between that table and bvd_docflow_subdocuments table (This table stores master data about all the documents for an subset. (docflow_subset_id is in both tables). This is the link between those to tables.
Going further down we also got the table bvd_docflow_documents this table contains the actual document data. The link between bvd_docflow_documents and bvd_docflow_subdocuments is bvd_docflow_subdocument_id.
On every table I got an foreign key defined so when data is removed on a table all the data linked to that data is also removed.
However when we look to the bvd_docflow_documents table it has all the foreign keys from the other tables (docflow_subset_id and docflow_documentset_id) and there is the problem. The only foreign key needed for that bvd_docflow_documents table is docflow_subdocument_id and no other.
Edit 2
I have changed my design further and removed information that I don't need after initial import of the data.
See the following link for the (total) databse design:
https://sqldbm.com/Project/SQLServer/Share/_AUedvNutCEV2DGLJleUWA
The tables subsets, subdocuments and documents have a many to many relationship so I thought a table in between those 3 documents_subdocuments is the way to go were I define all the different keys for those tables.
I am not used to the database design first and then build it. But, for everything there is a first time, and I try to do make a database that is using standards and is using the power of SQL Server the correct way.
I'll address the bottom-most table and ignore the rest for the most part.
But first some comments. Your schema is simply a model of a system. To provide feedback, one must understand this "system" and how it actually works to evaluate your model. In addition, it is important to understand your entities and your reasons for choosing them and modelling them in the specified manner. Without that understanding all of this guessing based on experience.
And another comment. Slapping an identity column into every table is just lazy modelling IMO. Others will disagree, but you need to also enforce all natural keys. Do you have natural keys? It is rare not to have any. Enforce those that do exist.
And one last comment. Stop the ridiculous pattern of prepending the column names with the table names. And you should really think long and hard about using very long table names. Given what you have, I sense you need a schema for your docflow stuff.
For the documents table, your current PK makes no sense. Again, you've slapped an identity column into the table. By itself, this column is a key for the table. The inclusion of any other columns does not make the key any more "unique" - that inclusion is logical nonsense. Following your pattern, you would designate the identity column as the primary key. But ...
According to your image, the documents table is related to one and only one subdocument. You added a foreign key to that table - which matches the image. You also added additional columns and foreign keys to the "higher" tables. So now a document "points" to a specific subdocument. It also points to a specific subset - which may have no relationship to the subdocument. The same thought applies to the other FK. I have a doubt that this is logically correct. So why do these columns (and related FKs) exist? Perhaps this is the result of premature optimization - which everyone knows is the root of all evil coding. Again, it is impossible to know if this is "right" or even "useful" for your model.
To answer your question "... is there a way", the answer is obviously yes. You remove the columns of which you complain. You added them - Why? Is this perhaps a problem with the tool you are using?
And some last comments. There is nothing special about "varchar(50)". Perhaps this is a place holder that will be updated later. It may also be another sign of laziness. And generally speaking, columns with names like "type" and "code" tend to be foreign keys to "lookup" tables - because people like to add, modify, or remove these sorts categorization values over time. I'm also concerned about the column name overlap among the tables. "Location" exists in multiple tables, as do action_code and action_id. And a column named "id" (action_id) suggests a lookup to another table - is it? Should it be? Is there a relationship between action_id and action_code? From a distance it is impossible to answer any of these questions.
But designing a database is more art than science. Sometimes you just need to create something, populate it with some sample data, and then determine if it works for your needs. Everyone will get something wrong in the first try. That is expected; that is how you learn. The most difficult part is actually completing your first attempt.
This is more of a curiosity at the moment, but let's picture an environment where I bill on a staunch nickle&dime basis. I have many operations that my system does and they're all billable. All these operations are recorded across various tables (these tables need to be separate because they record very different kinds of information). I also want to micro manage my accounts receivables. (Forgive me if you find inconsistencies here, as this example is not a real situation)
Is there a somewhat standard way of substituting a foreign key with something that can verify that the identifier in column X on my billing table is an existing identifier within one of many operations record tables?
One idea is that when journalizing account activity, I could reference the operation's identifier as well as the operation (specifically, the table that it's in) and use a CHECK constraint. This is probably the best way to go so that my journal is not ambiguous.
Are there other ways to solve this problem, de-facto or proprietary?
Do non-relational databases solve this problem?
EDIT:
To rephrase my initial question,
Is there a somewhat standard way of substituting a foreign key with something that can verify that the identifier in column X on my billing table is an existing identifier within one of many (but not necessarily all) operations record tables?
No, there's no way to achieve this with a single foreign key column.
You can do basically one of two things:
in your table which potentially references any of the other x tables, have x foreign key reference fields (ideally: ID's of type INT), only one of which will ever be non-NULL at any given time. Each FK reference key references exactly one of your other data tables
or:
have one "child" table per master table with a proper and enforced reference, and pull together the data from those n child tables into a view (instead of a table) for your reporting / billing.
Or just totally forget about referential integrity - which I would definitely not recommend!
you can Implementing Table inheritance
see article
http://www.sqlteam.com/article/implementing-table-inheritance-in-sql-server
An alternative is to enforce complex referential integrity rules via a trigger. However,and not knowing exactly what your design is, usually when these types of questions are asked it is to work around a bad design. Look at the design first and see if you can change it to make this something that can be handled through FKs, they are much more managable than doing this sort of thing through triggers.
If you do go the trigger route, don't forget to enforce updates as well as inserts and make sure your trigger will work properly with a set-based multi-row insert and update.
A design alternative is to havea amaster table that is parent to all your tables with the differnt details and use the FK against that.
So I'm working on just a learning project to expose myself to doing some things I do not get to do at work. I'm just making a simple bug and case tracking app (I know there are a million this is just to work with some tools I don't get to). So I was designing my database and realized I've never actually used Foreign Keys before in any of my projects, I've used them before but never actually setting up a column as a FK. So I've designed my database as follows, which I think is close to correct (at least for the initial layout).
Database Image http://drop.io/download/public/uurp1vxej0abpwu7jsee/895663dedff577359b900cda1726f115b24be90c/Asset/28368622/v3/large_thumbnail
However When I try to add the FK's to the linking Tables I get an error saying, "The tables present in the relationship must have the same number of columns". I'm doing this by in SQLSMS by going to the Keys 'folder' and adding a FK. Is there something that I am doing wrong here, I don't understand why the tables would have to have the same number of columns for me to add a FK relationship between the tables?
When defining a foreign key relationship there are four things you need to specify:
The referring table (foreign key table)
The columns from the referring table that will form the foreign key.
The referred table (primary key table)
The columns from the referred table that form the key.
I'm guessing that you have selected one of the above incorrectly - probably you have forgotten that you need to state the column involved in the relationship twice - once for each table.
Here's a screenshot of how it should look - note that the column is specified twice. In my example the columns have slightly different names to demonstrate that they don't always need to have the same name, but in your case the column names will be the same.
Is there a way to map one of the the columns contents of a MySQL table to an enum on another table in MySQL? I thought this would be a no brainer, but there doesn't seem to be any info that I can find on the subject.
Any advice or help on this matter would be cool and if it's not possible, does anyone know of an internal reason why it wouldn't be possible?
Best regards everyone :)
Gary
The enum type is handy as a one-off, but it doesn't scale well to multiple tables and isn't standard SQL either.
Best thing to do here is to use normal tables and relations:
Define a new table to hold the list of possible values; let's call it Master1
In the other two tables (let's call them Table1 and Table2), don't make the field an enum; just make it a normal field with a foreign key relation to Master1.
The foreign key relation will do the job of restricting to a list of possible values; and because foreign keys and relations are absolutely standard SQL, this approach will have other benefits - for example reporting tools can recognise the foreign key and understand how to use the related data.
If it doesn't do it, don't do it
Surely you just want a table of possible keys and then a foreign key mapping to that.
If you want a table with possible enum values and restrictions, go for groupings via another table or a groupid in the same table (if group members are unique).
Smells like table-stink though JOIN wise. Maybe best doing this in a stored procedure or in the app code and mapping it to a native value?
I have two tables, products and categories which have a many to many relationship, so I'm adding a products_categories table which will contain category_id and product_id.
Should I add another (auto-incrementing) index column or use the two existing ones as primary key?
That depends.
Are you seeing your data more as set of objects (and relational database is just
a storage medium) or as set of facts represented and analyzed natively
by relational algebra.
Some ORMs/Frameworks/Tools don't have good support for multicolumn primary keys.
If you happen to use one of them, you'll need additional id column.
If it's just a many-to-many relationship with no additional data associated with it,
it's better to avoid additional id column and have both columns as a primary key.
If you start adding some additional information to this association, then it may reach a point when it becomes
something more then many-to-many relationship of two entities.
It becomes an entity in it's own right and it'd be more convenient if it had it's own id
independent to entities it connects.
You don't need to add an extra, auto-incrementing index column, but I (perhaps contrary to most others) still recommend that you do. First, it is easier in the application program to refer to a row using a single number, for example when you delete a row. Second, it sometimes turns out to be useful to be able to know the order in which the rows were added.
No, it's not necessary at all, given that these two columns are already executing the function of a primary key.
This third column whould just add more space to your table.
But... You could use it maybe to see the order in which your records where added to your table. That's the only function I can see to this column.
You don't need to add an auto-incrementing index column. Standard practice is to use just the two existing columns as your primary key for M:M association tables like you describe.
I would make the primary key category_id and product_id. Add an auto increment only if the order will ever be relevent in later uses.
There's a conceptual question - is products_categories an entity or is simply a table that represents a relationship between two entities? If it's an entity then, even if there are no additional attributes, I'd advocate for a separate ID column for the entity. If it's a relationship, if there are additional attributes (say, begin_date, end_date or something like that), I'd advocate to have a multi-column primary key.