Could someone suggest the best design for the following scenario?
I have a database in which there is a table called City. This table has the following fields:
City id (Primary key)
City Name
State Id (which is linked to the State table)
My problem is I have 10 cities with the same name in one state. What will be the best design so I can represent one city name per id?
It does not matter that they have the same City Name, as long as they have different City Ids.
Just make sure to set the CityId as primary key in the City table. Also, it would be useful to make it an identity autoincrement column, so that it is inserted automatically and will always be unique.
Same goes for StateId in the State table.
Also, if you use a visual management tool for the database, make sure to set the foreign key relationship between the two tables:
FK_State.StateId_City.StateId.
Related
Apologies for the newbie question.
The primary key of a table, such as Holiday, would be something like Holiday_ID. Holiday reference a get-away ticket that you can buy to go on a type of holiday, based on the ticket you buy.
Suppose I used Holiday_ID in a composite entity with Customer_ID to identify an instance of Holiday associated with customer, for whatever purpose.
However, suppose I also want to keep track of other information related to this instace: how much has the customer paid for the ticket, how much has the customer yet to pay for the ticket
I have two options:
a) I can create another composite entity. However, I am not sure if I can do that because I am not sure if you can use a particualr foreign key more than once
b) I can create a composite/associate entity, however, I am not sure if you can create a composite entity with more than two foreign keys?
To answer the technical parts of your question, once you create a composite unique or primary key, ONLY ONE record in the table can have the same values in the set of fields defined in that key. SO, no, you cannot reuse the holidayId key WITH THE SAME customer. You can use it with another, different customer if you wish.
Second, there is no limit to the number of attributes that can be included in a Unique or primary key. If you need, and if it's appropriate and conforms to the rules of normalization, the key can include all the attributes of the table.
Third, to answer your question below, Any column, or set of columns in a table can be defined as a Foreign Key, as long as it is also the primary key or unique key of some table in the database. And there can be any number of FKs defined in a table, they can even overlap. (you can have HolidayId as a FK, and also have HolidayID and CustomerId as a composite FK) the only restriction is that the FK must reference a Primary or Unique Key of some table in the database.(It can also be the same table the FK is in as well, as when you add a supervisorId to an employee Table that is a FK to the EMployeeId of the same employee table)
This example illustrates one of the problems of using surrogate keys without also using a natural key. to wit, what, exactly is a "Holiday"? Is Christmas 2016 the same "Holiday" as Christmas 2015? Is Christmas in Aruba the same holiday as Christmas in Hawaii?
and then, about the composite table to identify associations of customer with Holiday, is it the same association if the customer goes to Aruba on Christmas the next year, or a different instance? What does the row in the table represent if the customer wants 5 tickets?
The first thing that should be done in database design is a logical design which defines, as clearly and unambiguously as possible, in business terms, the meanings of the entities for each table in the database.
I have a database with two tables containing (the first) some regions an (the second) some offices:
Table Regions
IdRegion
Region
Table Offices
IdOffice
IdRegion
IdOffice
(I've also set IdRegion as foreign key)
In a third table I have two fields where I want to insert the office and the region where the office is located preventing from errors.
I've already prepared a form in which (selected a region) are showed only the offices located in the selected region but I'm asking myself if is there any way to set the database for refusing of wrong insert.
Otherwise I've thought to check that the IdRegion is the one inserted in the Offices table corresponding to the office selected before executing the INSERT query.
Any suggestion is appreciated.
You're proposing making up a third table. I suppose that table will have IdOffice and IdRegion as its columns. If you did this, you'd make a composite primary key consisting of both columns. And you'd make IdOffice a foreign key to your Offices table. Likewise you'd make IdRegion a fk to your Regions table.
But that three-table design doesn't make any sense unless you have a many-to-many relationship between Offices and Regions. But you don't. You've put the IdRegion foreign key into your Offices table. That means you expect each office to be in just one region.
I'm designing a table 'employees', which contains an primary key which is auto increment and represents an ID of the employee.
I want to prefix the ID with an number designating the city: city 1: 1, city 2:2, etc.
So the IDs should look like xyy where x represents the city and yy the ID of the employee.
When I'm adding new employee I'm selecting the city x, and I would like to yy values to auto increment.
Is that possible using SQL commands?
That is not good database design. You really should have a separate column for the city in your table. If you have many cities, the cities should perhaps be in their own table. What you are trying to do is overly complex and although 'everything is possible', I would not recommend it.
You are effectively packing two fields into one and violating the principle of atomicity and the 1NF in the process. On top of that, your key is not minimal (so to speak).
Instead, keep two separate fields: ID and CITY.
ID alone is the primary key. In your own words, ID is auto-increment, so it alone is unique.
You can easily concatenate ID and CITY together for display purposes in your query or VIEW or even in the client code. There is no reason to "precook" the concatenated value in the table itself.
Given this requirement from the comments, "Unique ID should provide users with an info of the city, company requirements", I would do this.
table employee would have an employeeID as the primary key. Other fields would be firstname, lastname, birthdate, gender, etc
table city would have a cityId as the primary key. Other fields would be the name of the city, provinceState, Country, whatever is appropriate.
Table EmployeeCity would have have a primary key of EmployeeId, CityId, and StartDate. Not part of the primary key would be field EndDate.
The primary key of EmployeeCity satisfies the requirement of a unique identifier which leads to city information. Also, if an employee changes cities, it's a simple matter of updating one record and adding another.
Let's say there is a database with two tables: one customer table and one country table. Each customer row contains (among other things) a countryId foreign key. Let's also assume that we are populating the database from a data file (i.e., it is not an operator that is selecting a country from a UI).
What is the best practice for this?
Should one query the database first and get all ID's for all countries, and then just supply the (now known) country id's in the insert query? This is not a problem for my 'country' example, but what if there is a large number of records in the table that is being referred?
Or should the insert query use a sub query to get the country id based on the country name? If so, what if the record for the country does not exist yet and has to be added?
Or another approach? Or does it depend? :)
I would suggest using a join in your insert query to get the country id based on the country name. However, I don't know if that's something possible with every SGBD and you don't give more precision on the one you're using.
I need a schema for fitness class.
The booking system needs to store max-number of students it can take, number of students who booked to join the class, students ids, datetime etc.
A student table needs to store classes which he/she booked. But this may not need if I store students ids in class tables.
I am hoping to get some good ideas.
Thanks in advance.
Student: ID, Name, ...
Class: ID, Name, MaxStudents, ...
Student_in_Class: STUDENT_ID, CLASS_ID, DATE_ENROLL
*Not a mySql guru, I typically deal w/ MS SQL, but I think you'll get the idea. You might need to dig a little in the mySql docs to find appropriate data types that match the ones I've suggested. Also, I only gave brief explanation for some types to clarify what they're for, since this is mySql and not MS SQL.
Class_Enrollment - stores the classes each student is registered for
Class_Enrollment_ID INT IDENTITY PK ("identity is made specifically
to serve as an id and it's a field that the system will manage
on its own. It automatically gets updated when a new record is
created. I would try to find something similar in mySql")
Class_ID INT FK
Student_ID INT FK
Date_Time smalldatetime ("smalldatetime just stores the date as a
smaller range of years than datetime + time up to minutes")
put a unique constraint index on class_id and student_id to prevent duplicates
Class - stores your classes
Class_ID INT IDENTITY PK
Name VARCHAR('size') UNIQUE CONSTRAINT INDEX ("UNIQUE CONSTRAINT INDEX is
like a PK, but you can have more than one in a table")
Max_Enrollment INT ("unless you have a different max for different sessions
of the same class, then you only need to define max enrollment once per
class, so it belongs in the class table, not the Class_Enrollment table")
Student - stores your students
Student_ID INT IDENTITY PK
First_Name VARCHAR('size')
Last_Name VARCHAR('size')
Date_of_Birth smalldatetime ("smalldatetime can store just the date,
will automatically put 0's for the time, works fine")
put a unique constraint index on fname, lname, and date of birth to eliminate duplicates (you may have two John Smiths, but two John Smiths w/ exact same birth date in same database is unlikely unless it's a very large database. Otherwise, consider using first name, last name, and phone as a unique constraint)