I am doing a database on phpmyadmin. One of my tasks is to do a table called Users. One of the features the users will have is the ability to add another user as a friend. However, I am not sure how to go about this..
I thought of creating another table with the same data and use that ID as FK, however thought it was a bad idea since it is a many-to-many relationship.Instead, do I use the same table and do a foreign Key (Friend_id) inside it and give it an index and do a constraint using the same table?
Related
I've almost completed my very complex project, then realized I had one issue still hanging me up. How do you (or is it even possible) to have the foreign key auto update (to reflect the parent) for each child table?
I guess I should mention the main site is built through Joomla. Everything I will be referring to in this post resides outside of Joomla but on the same domain, with the exception to the user profiles.
For instance...
I have table dataCompany that stores the company information. This table will be a child table to the userProfile table. Now, userProfile table has an auto-incremented column (user_id) and I created a column by the same name in dataCompany (but not auto-incremented). I want the user_id in dataCompany to auto fill to match that from userProfile.
The user will be logged in when entering data into dataCompany, which I thought would make it easier to autofill the user_id foreign constraint. However, I still get the invalid error.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I was under the impression foreign keys were the only way to hold separate tables together.
EDIT:
I'm pretty sure I didn't explain what I'm doing very well.... so here's another try.
I have a website. The user will sign up for said website. That creates user_id in mysql database. I have a form the user will fill out, and the information will be stored in dataCompany. This table has primary key of companyID but also has column user_id. I want the data the user inserts into dataCompany to be associated with the user data tied together by user_id. Now, when the user signs up the user_id is auto-incremented. I can't have the user putting in their user_id when filling out their company information (as they don't know what it is)... that's where the 'auto update foreign key' comes from. I just want it to replicate what is already in the parent table (userData).
I'm using MySQL and have been planning out the database structure for a system I'm building out. As I've been going along, I started to wonder if it was acceptable to have a particular foreign key constraint in many different tables. From what I understand, it would be fine, as it makes sense. But I'd like to double check.
For example, I have a users table, and I use the user_id as a foreign key for many tables, sometimes multiple times in one table. For example, I have a one-to-one relationship with a user_settings table, which of course stores the user_id. And then I have a companies table, which alone has a few references to the user_id key. In this case, I have a column that keeps track of the user that created the company in the system (created_by), a column for the main contact (main_contact, who is also a user of the system), and there might be another reference. So that alone, already has the user_id key being used as a foreign key constraint 3-4 times.
Just to add another bit of info, I have a tasks table and that of course needs to reference the user_id to keep track of who it's assigned to, and I also have another column that keeps track of the user that created the task. That would be assigned_to and created_by, respectively.
There are more tables though that reference back to that key. I might be up to 8 references already. I do believe I've designed it properly so far, but based on what I've mentioned, does this sound fine?
Your foreign key usage seems fine to me - after all, you are simply representing logical relationships between your tables.
A user within your system interacts with the data in many ways, and to define these relationships your approach is the correct one.
The key point I think is that under a lot circumstances, you won't always want (or need) to make all the joins that represent your relationships - simply the ones that you need in that context.
As per my undestanding the way you are defining is fine i.e to use a user id to many tables as foreign key.
If your line:: I have a companies table, which alone has a few references to the user_id key doesn't mean that you are using multipe user_id in same table and I know you are not.
This seems like a desirable feature but I can't seem to figure out how I would do it while the foreign key is a part of the primary key (composite key).
The table is a simple junction table for a many to many relationship referencing User.id and Access.id referencing functions a user has access to:
Column | References
user user.id
access access.id
Therefore there can be many entries for each user and each access level. To simplify things for "superusers" I wanted to have a NULL value for access which would mean they have access to every page (this is the only way I could figure how to enter a value that didn't reference a row in the access table). The problem is MySQL won't allow a NULL value as a part of the primary key.
Is there a way around the NULL issue with primary keys or is there another way to reference every row (or no rows) in a foreign key? The only other way around this I can think of would be to disable the foreign key or have to add a row for every access.id in the table. Either of which would be undesirable.
Presumably you have a superuser flag on your user table. You could UNION a Cartesian join of each superuser and the set of available access IDs into whatever query you need this for.
Depending on what you're doing, you could also just not store the access for a superuser in the database and treat them differently in code - i.e. ignore the access check once you've established them as SU. Depends on your application though.
I think NULL is allowed and you can use it as a unique combination along with user.id. But I am not sure if this is a good way to do this. I mean you can store the super user setting in a column and use it in the code than here.
My questions are very simple, but I do not know an answer.
There is a table User. The User has a few photos in his profile on the site. There are at least two way to store links to photo. I can serialize an array of references to a string and store it, or create another table and store pair userId-link. Which way is better?
The user has a unique username column, email, phone. Is the following code right?
ALTER TABLE [User] ADD CONSTRAINT [LoginUk] UNIQUE CLUSTERED ([Login])
ALTER TABLE [User] ADD CONSTRAINT [EmailUk] UNIQUE CLUSTERED ([Email])
The user has the description of one car and one of the services, which he provides. Number of services and machines will not change. I can store the vehicle details (make, photos) in the profile of the user, or I can create a new table Car and create a 1-1 relationship. Similarly, I can do with the service. Which way is better?
Actually it's better to have one photos table and have a users_photos link table, then when you add photos to other entities, there's less to change.
People tend to have more than one phone number. If it's a business rule that they only have one number then leave that in the application layer, not the data layer.
One type of thing, one table for that thing. A car is a different thing than a user.
Why can't I just leave those relationships out?
What's the point of them?
I can stil run queries and treat them like it a relationship myself...
Yes, you can always leave the foreign key constraints out but then you will be responsible about the integrity of your data. If you use foreign key constraints, then you won't have to worry about the referential integrity among tables. You can read more about referential integrity from Wikipedia. I will also try to explain it with an example below.
Think of a shopping cart scenario. You have three tables: item, shopping_cart and shopping_cart_item. You can choose not to define any relationship between these tables, that's fine for any SQL solution. When user starts shopping, you create a shopping cart by adding a shopping_cart entry. As user adds items to his shopping cart, you save this information by adding rows to shopping_cart_item table.
One problem may occur at this step: If you have a buggy code that assigns incorrect shopping_cart_id's to shopping_cart_items, then you will definitely end up with incorrect data! Yes, you can have this case even with a foreign key constraint if the assigned id actually exists in the shopping_cart table. But this error will be more detectable when a foreign key exists since it would not insert shopping_cart_item record when the foreign key constraint fails.
Let's continue with the assumption that your code is not buggy and you won't have first type of referential integrity. Then suddenly a user wants to stop shopping and delete the cart and you chose to implement this case by deleting the shopping_cart and shopping_cart_item entries. Then you will have to delete entries in both tables with two separate queries. If something goes wrong after you delete shopping_cart entries, then you will again have a referential integrity problem: You will have shopping_cart_items that are not related to any shopping_cart. You will then have to introduce transaction managing, try to provide meaningful data to your business logic about the error happened in data access layer, etc..
In this type of scenario's, foreign keys can save life. You can define a foreign key constraint that will prevent insertion of any sort of incorrect data and you can define cascade operations that will automatically perform deletion of related data.
If there is anything unclear, just leave a comment and I can improve the answer.
Apart from what the others have said about why you technically want (actually: need) them:
foreign key constraints also document your model.
When looking at a model without FK constraints you have no idea which table relates to which. But with FK constraints in place you immediately see how things belong together.
You create FOREIGN KEYs to instruct the database engine to ensure that you never perform an action on the database that creates invalid records.
So, if you create a FOREIGN KEY relationship between users.id and visits.userid the engine will refuse to perform any actions that result in a userid value in visits that does not exist in users. This might be adding an unknown userid to visits, removing an id from users that already exists in visits, or updating either field to "break" the relationship.
That is why PRIMARY and FOREIGN KEYs are referred to as referential integrity constraints. The tell your database engine how to keep your data correct.
It doesn't allow you to enter an id which does not exist in another table, for example, if you have products and you keep owner Id, by creating a foreign key ton the owner id to id field of the owners table, you do not allow users to create an object record which has an owner id which does not exist in the owner table. such things are called referential intergrity.
The foreign key constraint helps you ensure referential integrity.
If you delete a row in one table, mysql can automatically delete all rows in other tables that the deleted row refers to via the foreign key. You can also make it reject the delete command.
Also when you try to insert a row, mysql can automatically create new rows in other tables, so the foreign key does not refer to nothing.
That is what referential integrity is all about.
Databases can be affected by more than just the application. Not all data changes go through the application even if they are supposed to. People change stuff directly on the database all the time. Rules that need to apply to all data all the time belong on the database. Suppose you can update the prices of your stock. That's great for updating anindividual price. But what happens when the boss decides to raise all prices by 15%. No one is going to go through and change 10,000 prices one at a time through the GUI, they are going to write a quick SQL script to do the update. Or suppose two suppliers join together to have one company and you want to change all of thie items to be the new company. Those kinds of changes happen to databases every day and they too need to follow the rules for data integrity.
New developers may not know about all the places where the foreign key relationships should exist and thus make mistakes which cause the data to be no longer useful.
Databases without foreign key constraints have close to a 100% chance of having bad data in them. Do you really want to have orders where you can't identify who the customers were?
THe FKS will prevent you from deleting a customer who has orders for instance or if you use a natural key of company_name and the name changes, all related records must be changed with the key change.
Or suppose you decide to put a new GUI together and dump the old one, then you might have to figure out all the FK relationships again (because you are using a different datalayer or ORM) and the chances are you might miss some.
It is irresponsible in the extreme to not put in FK relationships. You are risking the lifeblood of your company's business because you think it is a pain to do. I'd fire you if you suggested not using FKs because I would know I couldn't trust my company's data to you.