At a workplace they recycle punchcard ids (for some strange reason). So it is common to have past employees clashing with current employees. As a workaround I want to have employee punchcard id, employee name+surname as the unique primary key (fingers crossed, perhaps add date-of-birth and even passport if available). That can be accomplished with
PRIMARY KEY (pid,name,surname).
The complication is that another table now wants to reference an employee by its above primary key.
Alas, said PK has no name! How can I reference it?
I tried these but no joy:
PRIMARY KEY id (pid, name, surname),
INDEX id (pid, name, surname),
PRIMARY KEY id,
INDEX id (pid, name, surname) PRIMARY KEY,
Can you advise on how to achieve this or even how to reference a composite primary key?
Update:
The table to store employees is em.
The table which references an employee is co (a comment made by an employee).
Ideally I would use pid (punchcard id) as the unique id of each employee. But since pids are recycled, this is not unique. And so I resorted to creating a composite key or an index which will be unique and can reference that as a unique employee id. Below are the 2 tables without the composite key. For brevity, I abbreviated table names and omitted surname etc. So the question is, how can I reference an employee whose id is composite from another table co.
CREATE TABLE em (
pid INT NOT NULL,
name VARCHAR(10) NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE co (
id INT primary key auto_increment,
em INT,
content VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
constraint co2em_em_fk foreign key (em) references em(pid)
);
If another table wants to reference this one by a composite key, you don't need it to have a name - just the list of fields will do. E.g.
CREATE TABLE other_table (
ID INT PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
pid *defintion*,
name *defintion*,
surname *defintion*,
..., -- other fields, keys etc.
FOREIGN KEY (pid, name, surname) REFERENCES employees(pid, name, surname)
);
UPD: If you expect that the set of the fields inside PK might change and you can't make a simpler PK (auto-increment integer for example) for the original table, then your best bet might be something like this:
CREATE TABLE employee_key (
ID INT PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
pid *defintion*,
name *defintion*,
surname *defintion*,
FOREIGN KEY (pid, name, surname) REFERENCES employees(pid, name, surname)
);
-- and then reference the employees from other tables by the key from employee_key:
CREATE TABLE other_table(
ID INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
employee_id INT NOT NULL,
... -- other fields, indexes, etc...
FOREIGN KEY (employee_id) REFERENCES employee_key(ID)
);
Then if you have a change in employee table PK, you'll only need to update employee itself and employee_key, any other tables would stay as is.
If you CAN, however, change the original employees table, I would recommend something like this:
CREATE TABLE employees(
ID INT PRIMARY KEY AUTO_INCREMENT,
pid *defintion*,
name *defintion*,
surname *defintion*,
... -- other fields, keys, etc.
UNIQUE KEY (pid, name, surname)
);
Then you'll have to maintain the logic of generating new pid's in your code, though, or have them in some side table.
UPD2: Regarding inserts and updates.
As for inserts: you need to insert these explicitly - otherwise how would you expect the relation to be established? If you're using an ORM library to communicate with your database, then it might provide you with the methods to specify linked objects without explicitly adding the IDs, but otherwise to insert a row into employees, employee_key and other_table you need to first INSERT INTO employees(...) ;, then get perform a separate INSERT for the employee_key (knowing the key fields you've just added to employees), get the auto-generated key from employee_key and then use that to perform inserts to any other tables.
You might simplify all this by writing an AFTER INSERT trigger for employees table (that would automatically create a row in employee_key) and/or performing your inserts via a stored procedure (that will even return back the key of the newly inserted row in employee_key). But still this work needs to be done, MySQL won't do it for you by default.
Updates are a bit easier, since you can specify ON UPDATE CASCADE when adding the foreign key - in that case a change to one of the fields in the employees will automatically trigger the same change in any tables that reference employees by this key.
You would define it
CONSTRAINT id
PRIMARY KEY (pid, name, surname)
But you should read more about how MySQL uses INDEXES and how to optimize them
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/optimization-indexes.html
Related
Which is better method among below:-
Using unique column name for each column, primary and foreign keys among all table.
Example 1:
CREATE TABLE projects (
project_id PRIMARY KEY,
project_name VARCHAR(30)
client_id INT,
fk_project_user_id INT, ( FOREIGN KEY )
projects_created_by INT, ( FOREIGN KEY )
);
CREATE TABLE clients (
client_id PRIMARY KEY,
client_name varchar(20),
fk_client_user_id INT,( FOREIGN KEY )
client_created_by INT, ( FOREIGN KEY )
)
Don't care about the uniqueness of each column name for each primary and foreign keys among all tables.
Example 2:
CREATE TABLE projects (
id PRIMARY KEY,
project_name VARCHAR(30)
client_id INT, ( FOREIGN KEY )
fk_user_id INT, ( FOREIGN KEY )
created_by INT ( FOREIGN KEY )
);
CREATE TABLE clients (
id PRIMARY KEY, (Same as above table)
client_id INT,
client_name varchar(20),
fk_user_id INT, ( FOREIGN KEY ) (Same as above table)
fk_client_id int, ( FOREIGN KEY )
created_by INT ( FOREIGN KEY ) (Same as above table)
);
When we plan database for big ERP having multiple tables and relationships among all? I have used a different name for each key to avoiding ambiguous error when we join two tables.
What is the best solution?
Naming conventions are up to you. Which naming convention you decide to use is not important. What's important is that you follow your own convention consistently, and document it so that other developers know how to understand your code and your schema.
Some people choose to give every table a primary key named id. If every one of their tables must have a column named id, then they can write reusable code for certain queries against any table.
However, this convention does not account for compound primary keys. Also if your query does a join, the query result set may have multiple columns named id unless you define column aliases.
When I design a database, I name my primary key in a descriptive way. projects.project_id for example. This avoids the problem of duplicate column names in a result set of a join. It also makes it more clear what the column means when you see it in a query or a result set.
I like to name the foreign key the same as the primary key column it references, when I can do it without resulting in a conflict.
But consider this example, where there are multiple foreign keys in the same table that reference Users.user_id.
CREATE TABLE Bugs (
bug_id INT PRIMARY KEY,
description TEXT NOT NULL,
reported_date DATETIME NOT NULL,
user_reported_by INT NOT NULL,
user_assigned_to INT,
user_verified_by INT,
FOREIGN KEY (user_reported_by) REFERENCES Users(user_id),
FOREIGN KEY (user_assigned_to) REFERENCES Users(user_id),
FOREIGN KEY (user_verified_by) REFERENCES Users(user_id)
);
You can't assume you can use a common column name, because it's normal to need multiple foreign keys referencing the same table, as in the example above. Therefore you must allow the FK column name to be different from the PK it references.
I am working on a data model where I need to store Employee's basic details and his rating of skillsets in MySQL database.
The number of skillsets for each employee is more than 100.
So the information I need to store is as following:
Employee ID, Name , Department , Contact info, Skillset1,Skillset2,Skillset3, ... , Skillset115
Is creating one table with approximately 120 columns is good approach?
If not, what is the best practice to deal with this kind of requirement.
No. You should have a separate table with one row per employee and per skill:
create table employeeSkills (
employeeSkillId int auto_increment primary key,
employeeId int not null,
skill varchar(255),
constraint fk_employeeSkills_employeeid foreign key (employeeId) references employees(employeeId)
);
In fact, you should really have two extra tables. The skills themselves should be stored in a separate table and the above should really be:
create table employeeSkills (
employeeSkillId int auto_increment primary key,
employeeId int not null,
skillId int,
constraint fk_employeeSkills_employeeid foreign key (employeeId) references employees(employeeId),
constraint fk_employeeSkills_skillid foreign key (skillId) references skills(skillId)
);
This type of table is called a "junction table", and is common in any properly constructed data model.
You need to create two tables that would handle the skills and the assigned skill for each employee.
This would give you a proper order in your database and also will extend your options in the future. It'll be better in search, add and assign skills to each employee. It's even more organized and would be able to be expanded easily such as adding skills category and sub-category.
The two tables schema should be something like this :
CREATE TABLE Skills (
Skill_ID INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
Skill_Description VARCHAR(250),
PRIMARY KEY (`Skill_ID`)
);
CREATE TABLE EmpolyeeSkills (
ES_ID INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
Skill_ID INT,
Employee_ID INT,
PRIMARY KEY (`ES_ID`),
CONSTRAINT FK_EMPLOYEEID FOREIGN KEY (Employee_ID) REFERENCES Employees(Employee_ID),
CONSTRAINT FK_SKILLID FOREIGN KEY (Skill_ID) REFERENCES Skills(Skill_ID)
);
The Skills table will assign an ID for each skill, and it'll be in a separate table. This will make you have a unique skills list, there won't be any redundancy. Then, you'll use EmployeeSkills to save the assigned skills on each Employee_ID. Which you can use it later on to join it with other records.
The FOREIGN KEY on Employee_ID and Skill_ID will help you in monitoring the skills between them.
The ES_ID primary key for EmpolyeeSkills will be an additional advantage that can be helpful in the future. For instance, if you want to know the latest skill that has been assigned, then your faster approach will be getting the last ES_ID as it's an AUTO_INCREMENT. This is just one advantage from tons of others.
Im having some troubles with key referencing. The Error comes from when i try to insert data into Table Mark
INSERT INTO Mark(examID, studentID, result, occured, noOFAttempts)
VALUES ('B10', '1', '67', '11-JUL-07', '1');
I get the error:
integrity constraint violated - parent key
not found
Context :
The tables Exam and Student represent data about college exams and
students. The exam results for the students, including the number of
attempts a student has had at an exam (noOfAttempts), are recorded in
table Mark by using the id column from Exam and the id column from
Student. Both id columns have unique values . A student has only the
latest result recorded for each exam.
Write a SQL command to create the Mark table. Include the primary keys
and foreign keys apparent in the tables specified above.
CREATE TABLE Exam (
id VARCHAR(255),
subject VARCHAR(255),
noOfStudents INT,
PRIMARY KEY (id));
-
CREATE TABLE Student (
id INT,
name VARCHAR(255),
PRIMARY KEY (id));
-
CREATE TABLE Mark (
examID VARCHAR(255),
studentID INT,
result INT,
occured DATE,
noOFAttempts VARCHAR(255),
FOREIGN KEY (noOFAttempts) REFERENCES Exam(id),
FOREIGN KEY (noOFAttempts) REFERENCES Student(id));
How do i fix the error i know its to do with wrong referencing, thanks
Some of the logic behind the Mark table makes sense to me. It relates exams to the students who took those exams. But the motivation to make noOfAttempts a foreign key does not seem to serve much purpose. There are two foreign keys in that table, examID and studentID, and the combination of these two fields is also a primary key. Here is what the Mark definition might look like to avoid these errors:
CREATE TABLE Mark (
examID VARCHAR(255),
studentID INT,
result INT,
occured DATE,
noOFAttempts VARCHAR(255),
FOREIGN KEY (examID) REFERENCES Exam(id),
FOREIGN KEY (studentID) REFERENCES Student(id),
PRIMARY KEY (examID, studentID)
)
Again, I don't see the point of making noOfAttempts a key of any kind, rather I think it should just be one regular column in the Mark table.
Edit per request from Gordon:
When you made your insert, you attempted to create a record in Mark which referred to parent records which did not exist. In the case of your original table, you attempted to insert '1' as the noOfAttempts, but this ID did not exist in either the Exam and/or Student tables.
The tables will build, but every time I try to insert values into the table I get a 1452 error of foreign key constraints fails. I wonder if the problem has to do with EMPLOYEE table has a foreign key for STORE_CODE in the STORE table, and STORE table has a foreign key for EMP_CODE in EMPLOYEE table. Is the circular reference the problem here?
ALTER TABLE EMPLOYEE DROP FOREIGN KEY STORE_CD;
ALTER TABLE STORE DROP FOREIGN KEY REGION_CD;
ALTER TABLE STORE DROP FOREIGN KEY EMPLOYEE_CD;
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS EMPLOYEE, REGION, STORE;
CREATE TABLE EMPLOYEE (
EMP_CODE int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
EMP_TITLE varchar(4),
EMP_LNAME varchar(15),
EMP_FNAME varchar(15),
EMP_INITIAL varchar(1),
EMP_DOB datetime,
STORE_CODE int NOT NULL
) Engine=InnoDB;
-- Table Region
CREATE TABLE REGION (
REGION_CODE int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
REGION_DESCRIPT varchar(20)
) Engine=InnoDB;
-- Table Store
CREATE TABLE STORE (
STORE_CODE int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
STORE_NAME varchar(20) NOT NULL,
STORE_YTD_SALES numeric NOT NULL,
REGION_CODE int NOT NULL,
EMP_CODE int NOT NULL
) Engine=InnoDB;
ALTER TABLE EMPLOYEE ADD CONSTRAINT STORE_CD
FOREIGN KEY STORE_CD(STORE_CODE) REFERENCES STORE(STORE_CODE);
ALTER TABLE STORE ADD CONSTRAINT REGION_CD
FOREIGN KEY REGION_CD(REGION_CODE) REFERENCES REGION(REGION_CODE);
ALTER TABLE STORE ADD CONSTRAINT EMPLOYEE_CD
FOREIGN KEY EMPLOYEE_CD(EMP_CODE) REFERENCES EMPLOYEE(EMP_CODE);
It's not possible to have mutual foreign keys unless you allow at least one of the columns to be NULL. Otherwise you can never have a consistent set of tables: If you add the store first, it will refer to a nonexistent employee; if you add the employee first, it will refer to a nonexistent store.
So you need to allow the referencing column to be NULL. Then you can add a row to the first table with NULL in the referencing column, add a row to the second table, then fill in the referencing column in the first table with the ID from the second table.
In my experience with relational databases, I think you should create an
intermediate table to conect "store" with "employee" (lets name it (store_has_employee) with the atributes(idstore(fk), idemployee(fk) and isManager(boolean)).
Then you should insert the "regions" first, so you can insert a "store", then when you have registered "employees", all you have to do is conect them in "store_has_employee", and if you want to say that is the manager, just insert isManager=true.
This is the most eficient way to do it and to get faster queries.
Hope it helps.
Which one you Want to insert first? If EMPLOYEE then Make STORE_CD (nullable=true) in EMPLOYEE After that Insert STORE item with EMPLOYEE id and Update EMPLOYEE with store code.You can use Transaction for this whole process.
Due to my lack of understanding SQL, the simplest solution for me has been to remove the foreign key from the employee table so that I don't have a circular reference. Then populate the employee table first the other tables afterwards.
I have 2 tables, customers and affiliates. I need to make sure that customers.email and affiliates.email are exclusive. In other words, a person cannot be both a customer and an affiliate. It's basically the opposite of a foreign key. Is there a way to do this?
You can use a table that stores emails and have unique constrain on the email, and reference that table from the customer and affiliate. (still need to ensure that there are no 2 records referencing the same key)
You can use trigger before insert and before update to check if the email is not present.
Or you can leave this validation to the application logic - not in the database, but in the applicationc ode.
There is no key you can do this with, but it sounds like you shouldn't be using two tables. Instead, you can have one table with either customer/affiliate data (that needs to be unique in this table) and another table that has the type (customer/affiliate).
CREATE TABLE People (
pplid,
pplEmail,
ptid,
UNIQUE KEY (pplEmail)
)
CREATE TABLE PeopleType (
ptid,
ptType
)
INSERT INTO PeopleType VALUES (1, 'affiliates'), (2, 'customers');
You can try the following.
Create a new table, which will be a master for customers and affiliates:
CREATE TABLE party
(
id int not null auto_increment primary key ,
party_type enum('customer','affiliate') not null,
email varchar(100),
UNIQUE (id,party_type)
);
--Then
CREATE TABLE customer
(
....
party_id INT NOT NULL,
party_type enum('customer') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'customer',
PRIMARY KEY (party_id,party_type)
FOREIGN KEY (party_id,party_type) REFERENCES party(id,party_type)
);
CREATE TABLE affiliates
(
....
party_id INT NOT NULL,
party_type enum('affiliate') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'affiliate',
PRIMARY KEY (party_id,party_type)
FOREIGN KEY (party_id,party_type) REFERENCES party(id,party_type)
)
-- enum is used because mysql still doesn't have CHECK constraints
This way each party can be only of one type