I have two databases in SQL Server and i have a common table for both the databases an important big table which holds the foreign keys to other tables. The problem is the Table is in DatabaseA, and I need to refer foreign keys to this table from DatabaseB.
I know SQL doesn't support cross database referential integrity so what's the best way to achieve this? I am thinking of combining two databases and make into single database - it wouldn't matter aside from the increase in complexity.
Any suggestions?
I would avoid doing this if I could - can you just keep both tables in one datbase and use an FK?
Parent and Child Tables Are in Different Databases.
Although you cannot use a foreign key in this situation, there are workarounds – you can use either triggers or UDFs wrapped in check constraints. Either way, your data integrity is not completely watertight: if the database with your parent table crashes and you restore it from a backup, you may easily end up with orphans.
Parent-Child Relationship Is Enforced by Triggers.
There are quite a few situations when triggers do not fire, such as:
· A table is dropped.
· A table is truncated.
· Settings for nested and/or recursive triggers prevent a trigger from firing.
Also a trigger may be just incorrect. Either way, you may end up with orphans in your database.
Here's an article on how to use the SSIS Import / Export wizard:
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3580216/SQL-Server-2005-Import--Export-Wizard.htm
The easiest way to do this is just to export one database (I'd use the smallest of the two) to whatever format is the most convenient for you, and then import it into the other. As long as the table names are all different, this shouldn't present any problem.
Triggers can be written to enforce referential integrity against different databases.
Related
I have table1, table2 and table3 with lets say ID as a common column (no referential integrity is defined but its maintained programmatically with Table1 considered to be the Primary) .
I also have another common column EmpSalary in all the three tables. My requirement is to auto update all the three tables with EmpSalary when anyone of the tables is updated. Is there anything in SQL server which allows to add an auto update statement to the other two tables without enforcing cascade rule ?
P.S - I have tried and researched several possible options and am leaning towards triggers now which is not my favorite object to implement. Looking for alternate solutions here to see if I can avoid triggers.
#Lmu92 - client does not want any constraints on the db, so no an option. Triggers is my current solution looking for ideas until end of day
You could either use a trigger or take care of it in your code (e.g. stored procedure).
Or -my preferred solution- add referential integrity (=foreign key constraints) with cascading updates.
But this would require a "master" table holding the EmpSalary values and being the only one that gets updated...
None of the other options worked, so I ended up going with triggers.
If I'm going to write a whole SQL script to create a database with tables (that has foreign keys) should I write the dependent tables first?
You have some options:
You can create all the tables first, and then use ALTER TABLE to add the Foreign Keys.
You can create the one to many relationships as the tables are created. In that case, the order of table creation will matter.
When you create such DBs you (more often than not) seed the tables with data as well.
Depending on how much data you insert, you may want to make a decision to either INSERT data first, or to enforce RI first. If you have small tables, the RI checks don't consume too many resources. If you have large tables, then you may want to first insert the data and then implement the RI - that way the check is not done one row at a time, but at one time for all rows. Since you're seeding the tables, you know your data - presumably you'll do clean inserts so as to not fail the downstream RI check.
Let's say I have a Customers table with columns ID and CompanyId.
I need to delete some companies from the DB.
The problem is, the table has a lot of child tables and those tables also has a lot of child tables and so on...
Just to clarify, all the relationships are with constraints.
How can I accomplish that ?
Thanks.
EDIT: Notice that what i'm trying to do is a one time operation.
Whether i will change the constraints or add triggers or anything like that, I'm planning on removing it in the end.
The inbuilt solution to this problem is to set up your FK constraints with ON DELETE CASCADE.
However many people (myself included) are somewhat uneasy about doing this as a mistaken delete will silently propagate through the database.
Here are three ways:
Use a stored procedure to delete child first then up to the parent row in a transation.
I personally wouldn't make it dynamic and would have a specific "DeleteCompany" proc. Your may need a rule that such as "no delete if sales > 100 million" that needs checked
CASCADE DELETEs on your foreign keys
This can be tricky if you have multiple cascade paths, but simple otherwise
INSTEAD OF trigger
An INSTEAD OF trigger is like a stored procedure in operation. Note: You'll get an FK violation before an AFTER trigger fires
Personally, I'd use a stored proc so I have explicit deletes. The effect is the same as cascading FKs but more obvious.
For SQL Server 2008, this is the solution:
Generate Delete Statement From Foreign Key Relationships in SQL 2008?
With this solution, you can easily find the correct sequence of DELETE respecting, in the meantime, the foreign keys' relationships.
If you are interested in this theme, you can read also the ORACLE PL/SQL solution:
How to generate DELETE statements in PL/SQL, based on the tables FK relations?
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.
I'm designing this collection of classes and abstract (MustInherit) classes…
This is the database table where I'm going to store all this…
As far as the Microsoft SQL Server database knows, those are all nullable ("Allow Nulls") columns.
But really, that depends on the class stored there: LinkNode, HtmlPageNode, or CodePageNode.
Rules might look like this...
How do I enforce such data integrity rules within my database?
UPDATE: Regarding this single-table design...
I'm still trying to zero in on a final architecture.
I initially started with many small tables with almost zero nullalbe fields.
Which is the best database schema for my navigation?
And I learned about the LINQ to SQL IsDiscriminator property.
What’s the best way to handle one-to-one relationships in SQL?
But then I learned that LINQ to SQL only supports single table inheritance.
Can a LINQ to SQL IsDiscriminator column NOT inherit?
Now I'm trying to handle it with a collection of classes and abstract classes.
Please help me with my .NET abstract classes.
Use CHECK constraints on the table. These allow you to use any kind of boolean logic (including on other values in the table) to allow/reject the data.
From the Books Online site:
You can create a CHECK constraint with
any logical (Boolean) expression that
returns TRUE or FALSE based on the
logical operators. For the previous
example, the logical expression is:
salary >= 15000 AND salary <= 100000.
It looks like you are attempting the Single Table Inheritance pattern, this is a pattern covered by the Object-Relational Structural Patterns section of the book Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture.
I would recommend the Class Table Inheritance or Concrete Table Inheritance patterns if you wish to enforce data integrity via SQL table constraints.
Though it wouldn't be my first suggestion, you could still use Single Table Inheritance and just enforce the constraints via a Stored Procedure.
You can set up some insert/update triggers. Just check if these fields are null or notnull, and reject insert/update operation if needed. This is a good solution if you want to store all the data in the same table.
You can create also create a unique table for each classes as well.
Have a unique table for each type of node.
Why not just make the class you're building enforce the data integrity for its own type?
EDIT
In that case, you can either a) use logical constraints (see below) or b) stored procedures to do inserts/edits (a good idea regardless) or c) again, just make the class enforce data integrity.
A mixture of C & B would be the course of events I take. I would have unique stored procedures for add/edits for each node type (i.e. Insert_Update_NodeType) as well as make the class perform data validation before saving data.
Personally I always insist on putting data integrity code on the table itself either via a trigger or a check constraint. The reason why is that you cannot guarantee that only the user interface will update insert or delete records. Nor can you guarantee that someone might not write a second sp to get around the constraints in the orginal sp without understanding the actual data integrity rules or even write it because he or she is unaware of the existence of the sp with the rules. Tables are often affected by DTS or SSIS packages, dynamic queries from the user interface or through Query analyzer or the query window, or even by scheduled jobs that run code. If you do not put the data integrity code at the table level, sooner or later your data will not have integrity.
It's probably not the answer you want to hear, but the best way to avoid logical inconsistencies, you really want to look at database normalisation
Stephen's answer is the best. But if you MUST, you could add a check constraint the HtmlOrCode column and the other columns which need to change.
I am not that familiar with SQL Server, but I know with Oracle you can specify Constraints that you could use to do what you are looking for. I am pretty sure you can define constraints in SQL server also though.
EDIT: I found this link that seems to have a lot information, kind of long but may be worth a read.
Enforcing Data Integrity in Databases
Basically, there are four primary types of data integrity: entity, domain, referential and user-defined.
Entity integrity applies at the row level; domain integrity applies at the column level, and referential integrity applies at the table level.
Entity Integrity ensures a table does not have any duplicate rows and is uniquely identified.
Domain Integrity requires that a set of data values fall within a specific range (domain) in order to be valid. In other words, domain integrity defines the permissible entries for a given column by restricting the data type, format, or range of possible values.
Referential Integrity is concerned with keeping the relationships between tables synchronized.
#Zack: You can also check out this blog to read more details about data integrity enforcement, here- https://www.bugraptors.com/what-is-data-integrity/
SQL Server doesn't know anything about your classes. I think that you'll have to enforce this by using a Factory class that constructs/deconstructs all these for you and makes sure that you're passing the right values depending upon the type.
Technically this is not "enforcing the rules in the database" but I don't think that this can be done in a single table. Fields either accept nulls or they don't.
Another idea could be to explore SQL Functions and Stored Procedures that do the same thing. BUt you cannot enforce a field to be NOT NULL for one record and NULL for the next one. That's your Business Layer / Factory job.
Have you tried NHibernate? It's much more matured product than Entity Framework. It's free.