Here I have a EER diagram I am creating in the MySQL editor.
I want Person to relate to employee. I want some Persons entries to be employees/Customers/etc.
How would I implement this? Would it be a shared key? Join the tables? Related data?
I tried making EmployeeID a foreign key to PersonID. The tables still don't "relate". (There's no way to tell what employee X's name/dob/ect is.)
I encourage you to try again in the direction of making employeeID refer to personID, as a foreign key. You may not have implemented the whole idea.
The technique has a name: Shared Primary Key. If you search on this phrase, you will find articles describing what you have to do when adding a new employee. Without taking the correct steps when a new employee is added, you break the relationship between the two tables.
There is a tag with this name here in StackOverflow. shared-primary-key
What you are basically doing is setting up a situation where employee is a subclass of person. In an object-oriented system, this would be easy. SQL is not object oriented at the base level.
Related
I was unable to find a clear answer of how to create an IS_A relationship in Access.
There was the same question here, but without a concise answer:
IS_A relationship primary key validation rules
I have the entity Employee, and two sub-entities Loan_Officer and Branch_Manager. It's a school example of an IS_A relationship really.
I've managed to create A relationship, but there needs to be a constraint that an employee must be either a Loan Officer or a Branch Manager, but can not be both. Now, I can't figure out how to do this, because what ever I do, I can assign the same Employee_ID in both sub-entity tables at once.
I've connected the tables via the PK, as it's shown here:
Now, this table design is just something I've done, in order to be able to connect them via a one-to-one relationship. I had to set the PK of Loan_Officer to "Number" and not "AutoNumber", in order to be able to connect them. The other option is to have a separate PK in Loan_Officer, like "Loan_Officer_ID", and a foreign key, "Employee_ID" in the Loan_Officer table, but the results are again the same (also according to the ER Diagram, the sub-entities don't have a separate PK).
You can't. This is not a feature of the Access database.
You can create CHECK constraints to check for such conditions, but those don't offer features to cascade operations.
See this answer for an example on how to create a CHECK constraint.
There is no such thing as an 'Is A' relationship in databases between tables. This is instead a field in the Employee table or Employee History Table.
The issue of 'can't be both' is a matter of validation logic. Where this validation logic is applied is probably at the form object level (during data entry), not the table level (no data should ever be entered directly into tables by end users).
Look into Access Data Macros . They can be used like SQL triggers firing off when a record is INSERTed, UPDATEed, DELETEed etc.
I'd like to know what the best way of reflecting relations between precisely two rows from a single (my)sql table is?
Exemplified, we have:
table Person { id, name }
If I want to reflect that persons can be married monogamously (in liberal countries at least), is it better to use foreign keys within the Person:
table Person { id, name, spouse_id(FK(Person.id)) }
and then create stored procedures to marry and divorce Persons (ensuring mutual registration of the marriage or annulment of it + triggers to handle on_delete events..
or use a mapping table:
table Marriage {
spouse_a(FK(Person.id)),
spouse_b(FK,Person.id) + constraint(NOT IN spouse_a))
}
This way divorces (delete) would simply be delete queries without triggers to cascade, and marriage wouldn't require stored procedure.
The constraint is to prevent polygamy / multi-marriage
I guess the second option is preferred? What is the best way to do this?
I need to be able to update this relation on and off, so it has to be manageable..
EDIT:
Thanks for the replies - in practice the application is physical point-to-point interfaces in networking, where it really is a 1:1 relationship (monogamous marriage), and change in government, trends etc will not change this :)
I'm going to use a separate table with A & B, having A < B checked..
To ensure monogamy, you simply want to ensure that the spouses are unique. So, this almost does what you want:
create table marriage (
spouse_a int not null unique,
spouse_b int not null unique
);
The only problem is that a given spouse can be in either table. One normally handles this with a check constraint:
check (spouse_a < spouse_b)
Voila! Uniqueness for the relationship.
Unfortunately, MySQL does not support check constraints. So you can implement this using a trigger or at the application layer.
Option #1 - Add relationships structurally
You can add one additional table for every conceivable relationship between two people. But then, when someone asks for a new ralationship you forgot to add structurally, you'll need to add a new table.
And then, there will be relationship for three people at a time. And then four. And then, variable size relationships. You name it.
Option #2 - Model relationships as tables
To make it fool proof (well... never possible) you could model the relationships into a new table. This table can have several properties such as size, and also you can model restrictions to it. For example, you can decide to have a single person be the "leader of the cult" if you wish to.
This option requires more effor to design, but will resist much more options, and ideas from your client that you never thought before.
I am creating a DB for my project and I am facing a doubt regarding best practice.
My concrete case is:
I have a table that stores the floors of a building called "floor"
I have a second table that stores the buildings called "building"
I have a third table that stores the relationship between them, called building_x_floor
The problem is this 3rd table.
What should I do?
Have only two columns, one holding a FK to the PK of building and another holding an FK to the PK of floor;
Have the two columns above and a third column with a PK and control consistency with trigger, forbidding to insert a replicated touple of (idbuilding, idfloor)?
My first thought was to use the first option, but I googling around and talking I heard that it is not always the best option.
So I am asking for guidance.
I am Using MySQL 5.6.17
You don't need third table. Because there is one-to-many relationship between building and floor.
So one building has many floors and a floor belongs to one building. Don't get things complicated. Even though you need a table with composite keys, you should be careful. You need to override equals and hashCode methods.
I am still not confortable with that approach. I am not saying it is wrong or innapropriate, very far from that. I am trying to understand how the informations would be organized and how performatic it would be.
If I have a 1:* relationship, like a student may be attending to more than one subject along its university course within a semester I would Have the 3rd table with (semester, idstudent, iddiscipline).
If I try to get rid of the join table my relationship would be made with a FK inside student table or inside subject table. And it does not make sense to do that because student table is a table for a set of information related with registering the info of a person while the discipline table holds the data of a discipline, like content, hours...it is more a parametric table.
So I would need a table for the join.
Currently trying to get to grips with SQL for the first time, so I am working through a few problems. Here is a sample database spec:
Students (name, gender, course) do projects(title). Each project has
two supervisors (name, gender, department). All students do a project
but not all projects get taken. More than one student can do the same
project. Students meet one of their supervisors regular and these
meetings are recorded (date, time, student, supervisor, notes).
So far I've got an ER diagram drawn up which I think is correct:
I can get the basics (e.g. creating a Student table etc) but I'm having trouble getting my head around how to represent the relationships, specifically the meetings relationship, and how to represent it and its attributes in SQL. Should I instead create a 'meetings' entity?
Yes, you should create a Meeting entity to represent the many to many relationship between Student and Supervisor. In it you can relate to those tables using foreign keys that correspond to the those respective tables. In SQL it may look something like this:
Create table Meeting {
id INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
student_id INT NOT NULL,
supervisor_id INT NOT NULL,
//rest of the fields...
FOREIGN KEY (student_id) REFERENCES Student(id)
FOREIGN KEY (supervisor_id) REFERENCES Supervisor(id)
}
You would also do the same thing for the Supervise between Project and Supervisor. Also you could use something called a composite key on your Meeting table, I guess it comes down to personal preference, I usually do it this way when representing many to many relationships. I'm not saying this is the syntax you will use, that depends on your database, this was just an example to point you in the right direction. Hope it helps.
Also for your diagram (I'm just guessing this is for a class) you might want to look into software such as visio or visual paradigm to create your ER diagram. While most people will be able to understand your current diagram, that's not correct modeling.
For fun I made a diagram based on your tables:
You would want an entity between Supervisor and Project if they are a many to many relationship. This is called an associative entity. I labeled mine SupervisorProject just so they are a little more clear.
Edit
Overlooked the fact that Student and project was a many to one, fixed that, sorry.
In response to Cohagen this stackoverflow post suggests that many to many relationships like Supervise can be represented by keeping the relationship table even if it has no attributes. In contrast the Do table lies between a many to one relationship and doesn't have attributes so we can get rid of it and simply add a foreign key reference to the project table in students.
I am trying to determine how the tables need to be linked in which ways.
The employees tables is directly linked to a number of tables which provide more information. A few of those tables have even more details.
Employees have a unique employeeid but I understand best practice is to still have a id?
Customers have a unique customerid
Employees have a manager
Managers are employees
Customers have a manager associated with them. manager associated with them
Employees may have a academic, certification and/or professional information.
With all of this said what would be the best recommendation for creating primary and foreign keys? Is there a better way to handle the design?
EDIT
Updated diagram to reflect feedback thus far. See comments to understand changes taking place.
Though your question is sensible, before you go any further in design, I would suggest for you to spend some time understanding relationships, foreign keys and how they propagate through relationships.
The diagram is utterly wrong. It will help it you start naming primary keys with full name, TableNameID, like EmployeeID; then it will become obvious how keys propagate through relationships. If you had full names you would have noticed that all your arrows are pointing in the wrong direction; parent and child are reversed. Anyway, takes some practice. So I would suggest that you rework the diagram and post the new version, so that we can comment on that one. It should start looking something like this (just a small segment)
EDIT
This is supposed to point you to towards the next step. See if you can read description (specification) and follow the diagram at the same time.
Each employee has one manager, a manager manages many employees.
A manager is an employee.
Each customer is managed by an employee who acts as an account manager for that customer.
Account manages for a customer may change over time.
Each employee is a member of one team, each team has many employees.
Employee performance for each employee is tracked over time.
Employee may have many credentials, each credential belongs to one employee only.
Credential is academic or professional.
Employees have unique employeeID but I understand best practice is to
still have a id?
No. (But keep reading.) You need an id number in two cases: 1) when you don't have any other way to identify an entity, and 2) when you're trying to improve join performance. And that doesn't always work. ID numbers always require more joins, but when the critical information is carried in human-readable codes or in natural keys, you don't need a join to get to it. Also, routine use of ID numbers often introduces data integrity problems, because unique constraints on natural keys are often omitted. For example, USPS postal codes for state names are unique, but tables that use ID numbers instead of USPS postal codes often omit the unique constraint on that two-character column. In your case, you need a unique constraint on employee number regardless. (But keep reading.)
Employees have a manager.
Does the table "team" implement this requirement? If the "manager" table identifies managers, then your other manager columns should reference "manager". (In this diagram, that's customers, team, and customer_orders.)
Managers are employees.
And that information is stored in the table "manager"?
Customers have a manager associated with them.
And so does each order. Did you mean to do that?
Employees may have a academic, certification and/or professional
information.
But apparently you can't record any of that information unless you store a skill first. That doesn't sound like a good approach. Give it some more thought.
Whenever you design tables with overlapping predicates (overlapping meanings), you need to stop and sit on your hands for a few minutes. In this case, the predicates of the tables "employees" and "customers" overlap.
If employees can be customers, which is the case for almost every business, then you have set the stage for update anomalies. An employee's last name changes. Clearly, you must update "employees". But do you have to update "customers" too? How do you know? You can't really tell, because those two tables have independent id numbers.
An informal rule of thumb: if any real-world entity has more than one primary key identifying it in your database, you have a problem. In this case, an employee who is also a customer would have two independent primary keys identifying that person--an employee id and a customer id.
Consider adding a table of persons, some of whom will be employees, and some of whom will be customers. If your database is well-designed and useful, I'll bet that later some of the persons will be prospects, some will be job applicants, and so on. You will need an id number for persons, because in the most general case all you can count on knowing is their name.
At some point, you'll have to take your database design knowledge to the next level. For an early start, read this article on people's names.