I wish to create a constraint that state as below
Code.CodeTable ( CodeID smallint, CategoryID smallint,....) --> Parent Table
Admin.Document( DocumentTypeID smallint,.....) --> Child Table
The FK will be Admin.Document.DocumentTypeID map with Code.CodeTable.CodeID
I wish to have the constraint that only check Code.CodeTable.CodeID which the Code.CodeTable.CategoryID = 15 only.
As OMG Ponies already said - you cannot create fk constraints across databases, but if those are just odd table names with dots in them (highly discouraged! since SQL Server already uses a dotted schema: (database).(schema).(object name) and thus having dots in your table names is just asking for trouble at some point....), then you should be able to create your constraint like this:
ALTER TABLE [Admin.Document]
ADD CONSTRAINT FK_AdminDocument_CodeTableCodeID
FOREIGN KEY(DocumentTypeID) REFERENCES [Code.CodeTable](CodeID)
Since you have dots in your table names, you need to enclose those names in square brackets [].
Basically, you need to modify the child table and tell SQL Server which column in that child table refers to what parent table and column in the parent table.
Related
I have two tables, one of student and one of staff that look as such:
create table student (
id int not null primary key
)
create table staff (
id int not null primary key
)
I want the id in each to be unique. I know this isn't how it should be in production but I'm just trying to see why my check constraint doesn't work and I'm using a simpler example to explain.
I then alter the tables to include the check as follows:
alter table student add constraint not_staff check (id not in (select id from staff))
alter table staff add constraint not_student check (id not in (select id from student))
These checks seem to be invalid.
My question is whether we're allowed to have these kinds of SQL statements inside of a check constraint. If so, why is the above constraint invalid and how would I go about fixing it.
Thanks!
You can't use queries in a check constraint in Db2. Refer to the description of the CREATE TABLE statement.
CHECK (check-condition)
Defines a check constraint. The search-condition must be true or unknown for every row of the table.
search-condition
The search-condition has the following restrictions:
...
The search-condition cannot contain any of the following (SQLSTATE 42621):
Subqueries
The easiest way to achieve your goal is not to create constraints, but create a sequence and use it in before triggers on both tables.
I need to create a table having a field, which is a foreign key referencing to another query rather than existing table. E.g. the following statement is correct:
CREATE TABLE T1 (ID1 varchar(255) references Types)
but this one throws a syntax error:
CREATE TABLE T2 (ID2 varchar(255) references SELECT ID FROM BaseTypes UNION SELECT ID FROM Types)
I cannot figure out how I can achieve my goal. In the case it’s needed to introduce a temporary table, how can I force this table being updated each time when tables BaseTypes and Types are changed?
I am using Firebird DB and IBExpert management tool.
A foreign key constraint (references) can only reference a table (or more specifically columns in the primary or unique key of a table). You can't use it to reference a select.
If you want to do that, you need to use a CHECK constraint, but that constraint would only be checked on insert and updates: it wouldn't prevent other changes (eg to the tables in your select) from making the constraint invalid while the data is at rest. This means that at insert time the value could meet the constraint, but the constraint could - unnoticed! - become invalid. You would only notice this when updating the row.
An example of the CHECK-constraint could be:
CREATE TABLE T2 (
ID2 varchar(255) check (exists(
SELECT ID FROM BaseTypes WHERE BaseTypes.ID = ID2
UNION
SELECT ID FROM Types WHERE Types.ID = ID2))
)
For a working example, see this fiddle.
Alternatively, if your goal is to 'unite' two tables, define a 'super'-table that contains the primary keys of both tables, and reference that table from the foreign key constraint. You could populate and update (eg insert and delete) this table using triggers. Or you could use a single table, and replace the existing views with an updatable view (if this is possible depends on the exact data, eg IDs shouldn't overlap).
This is more complex, but would give you the benefit that the foreign key is also enforced 'at rest'.
I want to define a foreign key constraint between the table Speler and the table Wedstrijd. I want the key on the Wedstrijd table, but when I use this code in my SQL console:
ALTER TABLE Speler
ADD FOREIGN KEY (idSpeler) REFERENCES Wedstrijd(idWedstrijd);
It puts a key on the table Speler and on the table Wedstrijd
Thanks for your time!
ALTER TABLE Wedstrijd
ADD FOREIGN KEY (idWedstrijd) REFERENCES Speler(idSpeler);
Instead of "solving" what you perceive as your problem, I think you have a different problem:
By mapping idSpeler to idWedstrijd, you are basically saying that a Speler (Player) is equal to a Wedstrijd (Match). That becomes a 1:1 relation which is then shown as a line with two yellow 'key'-endings (assuming you are using SQL Server).
It is very likely to me that instead you need to create a linking table WedstrijdSpeler that sits between the other two tables.
Then the new table WedstrijdSpeler needs to be given 2 Foreign Keys:
WedstrijdSpeler.idWedstrijd -> Wedstrijd.idWedstrijd
WedstrijdSpeler.idSpeler -> Speler.idSpeler.
Then you can give WedstrijdSpeler either a combined Primary Key (containing both fields idWedstrijd and idSpeler), or you can add a third field idWedstrijdSpeler and make that the Primary Key. Either approach will do, it is up to you.
i have a table in sql that uses the adjacency model to create child/parent relationship. here is the exact schema:
id int primary key identity(1,1)
name nvarchar(max)
parent int
now i want to have exactly one name with the same parent. another word for parent 1 there should only be one name. if that name wants to show up in another record, it must have a different parent. how can i do this in t-sql?
I think you're looking for unique constraints. This will allow you to define column combinations for which the data must be unique across the table, but are not part of the primary key.
Are you using SQL Server? If so, these two articles should help:
Overview: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191166.aspx
Creating/modifying: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177420.aspx
Edit to provide example
ALTER TABLE [YourTable]
ADD CONSTRAINT [YourConstraint] UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED ([name], [parent])
You can create a unique index on (parent, name).
How do you create a one to many relationship using SQL Server?
Define two tables (example A and B), with their own primary key
Define a column in Table A as having a Foreign key relationship based on the primary key of Table B
This means that Table A can have one or more records relating to a single record in Table B.
If you already have the tables in place, use the ALTER TABLE statement to create the foreign key constraint:
ALTER TABLE A ADD CONSTRAINT fk_b FOREIGN KEY (b_id) references b(id)
fk_b: Name of the foreign key constraint, must be unique to the database
b_id: Name of column in Table A you are creating the foreign key relationship on
b: Name of table, in this case b
id: Name of column in Table B
This is a simple example of a classic Order example. Each Customer can have multiple Orders, and each Order can consist of multiple OrderLines.
You create a relation by adding a foreign key column. Each Order record has a CustomerID in it, that points to the ID of the Customer. Similarly, each OrderLine has an OrderID value. This is how the database diagram looks:
In this diagram, there are actual foreign key constraints. They are optional, but they ensure integrity of your data. Also, they make the structure of your database clearer to anyone using it.
I assume you know how to create the tables themselves. Then you just need to define the relationships between them. You can of course define constraints in T-SQL (as posted by several people), but they're also easily added using the designer. Using SQL Management Studio, you can right-click the Order table, click Design (I think it may be called Edit under 2005). Then anywhere in the window that opens right-click and select Relationships.
You will get another dialog, on the right there should be a grid view. One of the first lines reads "Tables and Columns Specification". Click that line, then click again on the little [...] button that appears on the right. You will get this dialog:
The Order table should already be selected on the right. Select the Customer table on the left dropdown. Then in the left grid, select the ID column. In the right grid, select the CustomerID column. Close the dialog, and the next. Press Ctrl+S to save.
Having this constraint will ensure that no Order records can exist without an accompanying Customer record.
To effectively query a database like this, you might want to read up on JOINs.
This is how I usually do it (sql server).
Create Table Master (
MasterID int identity(1,1) primary key,
Stuff varchar(10)
)
GO
Create Table Detail (
DetailID int identity(1,1) primary key,
MasterID int references Master, --use 'references'
Stuff varchar(10))
GO
Insert into Master values('value')
--(1 row(s) affected)
GO
Insert into Detail values (1, 'Value1') -- Works
--(1 row(s) affected)
insert into Detail values (2, 'Value2') -- Fails
--Msg 547, Level 16, State 0, Line 2
--The INSERT statement conflicted with the FOREIGN KEY constraint "FK__Detail__MasterID__0C70CFB4".
--The conflict occurred in database "Play", table "dbo.Master", column 'MasterID'.
--The statement has been terminated.
As you can see the second insert into the detail fails because of the foreign key.
Here's a good weblink that shows various syntax for defining FK during table creation or after.
http://www.1keydata.com/sql/sql-foreign-key.html
If you are not using SSMS then here is the syntax:
ALTER TABLE <table_name>
ADD <constraint_name> FOREIGN KEY
(<column_name1> ,
<column_name2> )
REFERENCES <table_name>
(<column_name1> ,
<column_name2>)
http://infogoal.com/sql/sql-add-foreignkey.htm
If you are talking about two kinds of enitities, say teachers and students, you would create two tables for each and a third one to store the relationship. This third table can have two columns, say teacherID and StudentId.
If this is not what you are looking for, please elaborate your question.