I've made a project that's essentially an online bookstore where one can buy books and place the order.
My database contains various tables like:
user
user_shipping_address
user_payment_mode
user_order
order_shipping_address
order_billing_address
order_payment_details
I tried to construct the EERD diagram for this but I am confused about one thing: A user_order can only have one shipping address. I've created a foreign key order_id in the order_shipping_address table that references the primary key order.id. I also have a shipping_address_id foreign key in the table order that references order_shipping_address.id.
When I try to generate the ER diagram, it gives me two different relationships. A 1:1 relationship between the order and the shipping address and a 1:M relationship from the shipping address to the order. I don't know how to structure the foreign key constraints because I feel the order table should contain the shipping_address_id and the shipping address should contain the order_id, right? This just made everything more confusing.
Please help me about this.
Here is my EERD :
This happens because your current design means it's possible for multiple user_order rows to reference the same single shipping_address row.
You need to change the design so that it's impossible for multiple user_order rows to reference the same single shipping_address row.
There are at least two different possible solutions:
Add a UNIQUE constraint on user_order.shipping_address_id
Or: invert the relationship (this my preferred option as it eliminates unneeded surrogate keys):
Remove the user_order.shipping_address_id column.
Change shipping_address.id to shipping_address.order_id, so that it's a foreign-key of user_order.id
Make shipping_address.order_id the new primary key of shipping_address.
Note that both of these options are a denormalization as it prevents the sharing of shipping addresses between different orders (e.g. if the same customer makes the same repeat order a lot) though this can be intentional - so that if a user's future address changes it won't unintentionally retroactively update old order shipping records.
A few other tips:
Consider using int rather than bigint for your identities - I doubt you'll have over 2 billion rows in each table.
Don't blindly use varchar(255) for all text columns - use it to enforce reasonable constraints on data length, for example state doesn't need to be longer than 2 characters if you're storing abbreviations, ditto zipcode which can be varchar(10) if you're using ZIP+4.
DO NOT STORE FULL CREDIT CARD NUMBERS IN YOUR DATABASE! (as seen in your payment table) - This is a violation of PCI Rules, a massive liability and probably illegal negligence in your jurisdiction. Your payment processor will provide you with a substitute opaque token value (or something similar) as a means of identifying charge-cards and applying future charges to stored payment details - the most you can reasonably store is the last 4 digits. Whether or not your encrypt the data is largely irrelevant.
Related
I'm building a new DB using MySQL to store lessons learned across a variety of projects. When we talk about this in the office, we refer to lessons by the Project Number and Lesson Number, i.e. PR12-81, where PR12 refers to the project and 81 refers to the specific lesson within that project. I want the primary key in my DB to have a hyphen in it as well.
When defining a composite key in SQL, I can make it reference the project and lesson but without the hyphen, i.e. PR1281. I've also considered creating a separate column of data type CHAR(1), putting a hyphen in every row and delcaring that the PK is made of 3 columns.
Is there another way that I can specify the primary key to be formatted in the preferred way?
Let your table's primary key be a nonsensical auto-increment number with no "meaning" whatsoever. Then, within that table, define two columns: project_number and lesson_number. If the two need to be unique, define a UNIQUE index encompassing the two fields.
Don't(!) create database keys which embed information into them, even if the business does so. If the business needs to refer to strings like PR12, so be it ... create a column to store the appropriate value, or use a one-to-many table. Use indexes as needed to enforce uniqueness.
Notice(!) that I've now described four columns:
The auto-increment based "actual" primary key, which contains no information.
The project_number column, probably a foreign key to a projects table.
Ditto the lesson_number. (With a UNIQUE composite index if needed.)
The column (or table) which contains "the string that the business uses."
Over time, business practices do change. And someday you just might .. no, you will... ... encounter a "business-used string" that was incorrectly assigned by the human-beings who do such things! Your database design needs to gracefully handle this. The schema I've described is so-called third-normal form. Do a Google-search on "normal forms" if you haven't already.
Given the following SQL table:
Ticket:
- id (primary)
- state
- created
I want to limit the state to a set of predetermined choices, for example open, pending, closed. Should a given state be stored as a single string for each table row, depending on the application to decide which strings (choices) are allowed? Or should the state be a foreign key of a separate table that stores all allowed values, such as:
Ticket:
- id (primary)
- state (foreign)
- created
TicketState
- id (primary)
- name
The second options seems better but for large tables with a ton of choices it seems the number of these "extra" tables grows rapidly. What's the most common approach to this?
I would almost always use a Foreign Key into a lookup table. While you can use a CONSTRAINT to limit a column (for example, to 'open', 'pending, 'closed') that approach both hides business logic and also makes it more difficult to add additional values if your requirements change.
The cost of JOINing to a table on an INT clustered primary key is very small and I think that trying to avoid this at the cost of an inferior design is a clear case of premature optimization.
ONE TABLE: How often you add, remove, or rename TicketState's name? Do you plan to use any database other than MySQL in the future? If not, ENUM is your friend for MySQL.
TWO TABLES: Even if you make TicketState separately, it will not grow as Ticket grows. It will be fixed by the number of possible states. It may require additional join, but it's less risky (RECOMMENDED)
I have two tables currently with the same primary key, can I have these two tables with the same primary key?
Also are all the tables in 3rd normal form
Ticket:
-------------------
Ticket_id* PK
Flight_name* FK
Names*
Price
Tax
Number_bags
Travel class:
-------------------
Ticket id * PK
Customer_5star
Customer_normal
Customer_2star
Airmiles
Lounge_discount
ticket_economy
ticket_business
ticket_first
food allowance
drink allowance
the rest of the tables in the database are below
Passengers:
Names* PK
Credit_card_number
Credit_card_issue
Ticket_id *
Address
Flight:
Flight_name* PK
Flight_date
Source_airport_id* FK
Dest_airport_id* FK
Source
Destination
Plane_id*
Airport:
Source_airport_id* PK
Dest_airport_id* PK
Source_airport_country
Dest_airport_country
Pilot:
Pilot_name* PK
Plane id* FK
Pilot_grade
Month
Hours flown
Rate
Plane:
Plane_id* PK
Pilot_name* FK
This is not meant as an answer but it became too long for a comment...
Not to sound harsh, but your model has some serious flaws and you should probably take it back to the drawing board.
Consider what would happen if a Passenger buys a second Ticket for instance. The Passenger table should not hold any reference to tickets. Maybe a passenger can have more than one credit card though? Shouldn't Credit Cards be in their own table? The same applies to Addresses.
Why does the Airport table hold information that really is about destinations (or paths/trips)? You already record trip information in the Flights table. It seems to me that the Airport table should hold information pertaining to a particular airport (like name, location?, IATA code et cetera).
Can a Pilot just be associated with one single Plane? Doesn't sound very likely. The pilot table should not hold information about planes.
And the Planes table should not hold information on pilots as a plane surely can be connected to more than one pilot.
And so on... there are most likely other issues too, but these pointers should give you something to think about.
The only tables that sort of looks ok to me are Ticket and Flight.
Re same primary key:
Yes there can be multiple tables with the same primary key. Both in principle and in good practice. We declare a primary or other unique column set to say that those columns (and supersets of them) are unique in a table. When that is the case, declare such column sets. This happens all the time.
Eg: A typical reasonable case is "subtyping"/"subtables", where entities of a kind identified by a candidate key of one table are always or sometimes also of the kind identifed by the same values in another table. (If always then the one table's candidate key values are also in the other table's. And so we would declare a foreign key from the one to the other. We would say the one table's kind of entity is a subtype of the other's.) On the other hand sometimes one table is used with attributes of both kinds and attributes inapplicable to one kind are not used. (Ie via NULL or a tag indicating kind.)
Whether you should have cases of the same primary key depends on other criteria for good design as applied to your particular situation. You need to learn design including normalization.
Eg: All keys simple and 3NF implies 5NF, so if your two tables have the same set of values as only & simple primary key in every state and they are both in 3NF then their join contains exactly the same information as they do separately. Still, maybe you would keep them separate for clarity of design, for likelihood of change or for performance based on usage. You didn't give that information.
Re normal forms:
Normal forms apply to tables. The highest normal form of a table is a property independent of any other table. (Athough you might choose that form based on what forms & tables are alternatives.)
In order to normalize or determine a table's highest normal form one needs to know (in general) all the functional dependencies in it. (For normal forms above BCNF, also join dependencies.) You didn't give them. They are determined by what the meaning of the table is (ie how to determine what rows go in it in any given situation) and the possible situtations that can arise. You didn't give them. Your expectation that we could tell you about the normal forms your tables are in without giving such information suggests that you do not understand normalization and need to educate yourself about it.
Proper design also needs this information and in general all valid states that can arise from situations that arise. Ie constraints among given tables. You didn't give them.
Having two tables with the same key goes against the idea of removing redundancy in normalization.
Excluding that, are these tables in 1NF and 2NF?
Judging by the Names field, I'd suggest that table1 is not. If multiple names can belong to one ticket, then you need a new table, most likely with a composite key of ticket_id,name.
Should you always create unique keys whenever possible?
For example let's say I have a table with three fields, student ID, first name, last name and the student ID is the primary key.
If no two students have the first & last name, should I create a unique key for those two fields?
Yes, you should use unique indexes even when you already have a primary key when the column or combination of columns are unique. It's good to have constraints in your database to prevent bad data. However, this is not what you have in your case. Even if you currently have no students with duplicate names that can easily happen in the future. Names are not unique in the world.
U.S. Social Security numbers are almost always unique (they can be reused after a number of years, but it's unlikely to ever happen in your case), so they might make for a good candidate for a unique index. If you have non-U.S. students though then you would need to make the column nullable.
Yes, usually having unique IDs (surrogate keys) is best. In this case, last name and first name are not enough for a primary key. Even if you no duplicate names now, you can't be sure you won't have two John Smith's in the future.
Don't make the assumption that no two students will have the same name.
When the underlying model suggests it, it is a good idea to create unique keys. Constraints like these will ensure cohesive data and prevent errors. But in your case the underlying model does not suggest this to be the case.
Unique keys should follow business definitions; if the studentID is a "semi-natural" key (it has unique meaning that exists beyond your specific database), then that should suffice as your unique key.
If the studentID is simply an identity value that is assigned by the database as a row-number, then you probably need some other unique key to avoid entering the same student twice.
Primitive primary key with no relation to data domain is one of widely accepted best practices
( just imagine - one of your students decides to marry )
Another good practice (though from NoSql) world is to use GUID - this way keys are unique, and different datasets can be mixed in same table without collisions.
PS: you could save some storage space, but today it is cheap and there is no need to sacrifice good practices for it
Yes!
If you ever need to update or delete rows from the table, it is very advantageous to have something to uniquely identify each row in the table.
With your example, I don't think it's possible to guarantee no two students will share the same name. Even adding a date of birth still can't guarantee they'll always be unique. I'd recommend adding an auto incrementing INT or BIGINT as the primary key.
You can always add the Unique constraint as well and remove it if it becomes an issue.
A simple way to do it is use an auto-generated Guid (Globally Unique Identifier) to identify a student. It is "guarenteed" to be unique every time it is generated. Names can change (like when somebody gets married), but some auto generated value has no meaning so should never need to be changed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_unique_identifier
Your database constraints should be DBMS understood business rules. Is there a business rule that states that no two students may have the same first and last name combination? I presume not, therefore do not create a unique key for those two fields. Perhaps best not to presume, though, and ask a business domain expert e.g. the enrolment officer.
Note that a row in this table is a proposition I.e. that there exists a student enrolled with first name 'x' and last name 'y' and student ID 'z'. Clearly the DBMS has not concept of whether this proposition is true in the real world. What normally happens is that there will be a trusted source to verify data. The enterprise will authorize an officer (director etc) in this role. Let's say it is the enrolment officer who is responsible for verifying that 'x y' is a real person, that they are eligible to be enrolled, and the person is who they say they are. Typically, they will require sight of documents (certificates, passport, etc), take up references, interview the person, check public records, etc. Of course, the enrolment officer may delegate their responsibility to other members of staff or engage an agent.
At some point they will be satisfied and for convenience will issue they own identifier, the student ID. Mistakes do happen and it may turn out that this value is not unique, in which case it would be the enrolment officer's responsibility to resolve the problem and issue a new student to. Perhaps they will use software to generate the value to mitigate against such problems. The student ID will be issued to the student and will be used within the enterprise to identify the person for the convenience of all concerned. They may even be issued with a document (e.g. photo ID card) to assist in identification, based on the level of trust in a given context (e.g. may need to produce photo ID to sit an exam). If the student forgets their ID, loses their issued documents, etc then the enrolment office will be able to retrieve it from records e.g. with reference to copy documents taken during the verification process; they are unlikely to use first name and last name alone.
The point is, the trusted source for the identifier is the enrolment officer on behalf of the enterprise, rather than the database, the DBMS or any other kind of software involved in the process. Therefore, it probably is acceptable to make student ID the sole identifier for stents within the database. Consider, however, that an auto-increment column generated on one hardware build of a single DBMS within the enterprise is probably not suitable for the allocation of such significant identifier values.
I've checked everything for errors: primary key, uniqueness, and type. Access just doesnt seem to be able to link the 2 fields i have in my database. can someone please take a look?
http://www.jpegtown.com/pictures/jf5WKxKRqehz.jpg
Thanks.
Your relationship diagram shows that you've made the ID fields your primary key in all your tables, but you're not using them for your joins. Thus, they serve absolutely no purpose. If you're not going to use "surrogate keys" (i.e., a meaningless ID number that is generated by the database and is unique to each record, but has absolutely no meaning in regard to the data in your table), then eliminate them. But if you're going to use "natural keys" (i.e., a primary key constructed from a set of real data fields that together are going to be unique for each record), you must have a unique compound index on those fields.
However, there are issues with both approaches:
Surrogate Keys: a surrogate PK makes each record unique. That is you could have a record for David Fenton with ID 1 and a record for David Fenton with ID 2. If it's the same David Fenton, you've got duplicate data, but as far as your database knows, they are unique.
Natural Keys: some types of entities work very well with natural keys. The best such are where there's a single field that identifies the record uniquely. An example would be "employee type," where values might be "associate, manager, etc." In that case, it's a very good candidate for using the natural key instead of adding a surrogate key. The only argument against the natural key in that case is if the data in the candidate natural key is highly volatile (i.e., it changes frequently). While every modern database engine provides "CASCADE UPDATE" functionality (i.e., if the value in the PK field changes, all the tables where that field is a Foreign Key are automatically updated), this imposes a certain amount of overhead and can be problematic. For single-column keys, it's unlikely to be an issue. Now, except for lookup tables, there are very few entities for which a natural key will be a single column. Instead, you have to create a compound index, i.e., an index that spans multiple data fields. In the index dialog in Access table design, you create a compound key by giving it a name in the first column, and then adding multiple rows in the second column (from the dropdown list of fields in your table). The drawback of this is that if any of the fields in your compound unique index are unknown, you won't get uniqueness. That is, if a field has a Null in two records, and the rest of the fields are identical, this won't be counted as a conflict of uniqueness because Null never equals Null. This is because Null doesn't mean "empty" -- it means "Unknown."
Allen Browne has explained everything you need to know about Nulls:
Nulls: Do I Need Them?
Common Errors with Null
In your graphic, you show that you are trying to link the Company table with the PManager table. The latter table has a CompanyID field, and your Company table has a unique index on its ID field, so all you need is a link from the ID field of the Company table to the CompanyID field of the PManager table. For your example to work (which would be useless, since you already have a unique index on the ID field), you'd need to create a unique compound key spanning both ID and ShortName in the Company table.
Additionally, if ShortName is a field that you want to be unique (i.e., you don't want two company records to have the same ShortName), you should add a unique index to it, whether or not you still use the ID field as your primary key. This brings me back to item #1 above, where I described a situation where a surrogate key could lead you to enter duplicate records, because uniqueness is established by the surrogate key along. Any time you choose to use a surrogate key, you must also add a unique compound index on any combination of data fields that needs to be unique (with the caveat about Null fields as outlined in item #2).
If you're thinking "surrogate keys mean more indexes" you're correct, in that you have two unique indexes on the same table (assuming you don't have the Null problem). But you do get substantial ease of use in joining tables in SQL, as well as substantially less duplication of data. Likewise, you avoid the overhead of CASCADE UPDATE. On the other hand, if you're viewing a child table with a natural foreign key, you don't need to join to the parent table to be able to identify the parent record, because the data that identifies that record is right there in the foreign-key fields. That lack of a need for a join can be a major performance gain in certain scenarios (especially for the case where you'd need an outer join because the foreign key can be Null).
This is actually quite a huge topic, and it's something of a religious argument. I'm firmly in the surrogate key camp, but I use natural keys for lookup tables where the key is a single column. I don't use natural keys for any other purpose. That said, where possible (i.e., no Null problems) I also have a unique index on the natural key.
Hope this helps.
Actually you need an index on the name fields, on both sides
However, may I suggest that you have way too many joins? In general there should only be one join from one table to the next. It is rare to have more than one join between tables, and exceedingly rare to have more than two.
Have a look at this link:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2006/07/12/Tip_2F00_Trick_3A00_-Online-Database-Schema-Samples-Library.aspx
Notice how all of the tables are joined together by a single relationship?
Each of the fields labeled PK are primary keys. These are AUTONUMBER fields. Each of the fields labeled FK are foreign keys. These are indexed Number fields of type Integer. The Primary Keys are connected to the Foreign Keys in a 1 to many relationship (in most cases).
99% of the time, you won't need any other kind of joins. The trick is to create tables with unique information. There is a lot of repeated information in your database.
A database that is reorganized in this manner is called a "normalized" database. There are lots of good examples of these at http://www.databaseanswers.org/data_models/
Just join on the CompanyID. You could also get rid of the Company field in PManager.
I did the following and the problem was solved (I face the same problem of referential integrity in access).
I exported data from both tables in Access to Excel. Table1
was containing Cust Code and basic information about the company.
Cust Code as Primary key.
Table2 was containing all information about who the
customers associated with that company.
I removed all duplicates from Table2 exported to excel.
Using Vlookup I checked and found that there are 11
customers code not present in Table1.
I added those codes in Access Table. I linked by
referential integrity and Problem was solved.
Also look for foreign key if it does not work.
You need to create an INDEX. Perhaps look for some kind of create index button and create an index on CompanyID