I have a table named USERS with user_id as primary key and user_name.
I have another table USERS_ACT with user_act_id primary key, user_act_user_id and another 2 columns.
I need user_act_user_id to be foreign key in USERS? How can I achieve this?
This is my first day in SQL so please be kind to explain if what I ask is wrong.
let's assume you are not the DB admin and you just want to get all the active users' names ;))
select users.user_name
from users
join users_act on users.user_id = users_act.user_act_user_id
Without referencial integrity it's up to you to make it work, there's no "magic" around it.
Populate your user_act_user_id with a pk-value from USERS and there you have it.
You may want to add constraints, but that may not be what you're asking for,
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175464.aspx
In short, they keep the keys between tables in good shape.
Assuming you are using InnoDB (which is the only engine that supports foreign keys):
ALTER TABLE users_act
ADD CONSTRAINT fk_users_act_users
FOREIGN KEY (user_act_user_id)
REFERENCES users (user_id);
It depends on your DB Type if MySql even supports foreign keys. For example you can use foreign keys with InnoDB format but not with MyIsam format.
When working with MySql i personally prefer working with MyIsam and do most of the checking about integrity while programming.
In general you can just add user_act_user_id in your table USERS but not mark it as any key. After that you can simple use a JOIN, but ofc the referencial integrity is not given so have to write your own "trigger" on programming site if you want f.e. to automaticly delete data belonging to a user in the other table. Otherwise you have to use constraints or triggers, but this might be not that easy when just started with SQL.
Related
I have a system that has categories that are joined to events. All of these categories are simple, they have an id, and name. One thing that worries me is that when I am creating these categories, the ids should always remain the same, be static. If I deleted one, let's say "Politics" at id=1, all of those events would have an orphaned category. One solution I thought of is to just assign string ids to them, so if they do happen to get deleted, it wouldn't really matter. What kind of solution do you recommend?
From my perspective it seems like you could keep the ids and just put a constraint that doesn't allow you to delete the record, only edit them. Another, is to use string ids, but that seems like a pain, although it seems to solve the problem of worrying about the ids being messed with.
Yes, this is what foreign key constraints are for. They also allow for rules on how to handle deletes -- for example, allowing a delete to cascade through dependent records, which is of course very dangerous and not what you would want in this situation. A simple basic constraint will do.
HOWEVER!!!! This is the important thing to understand about mysql. The default mysql engine (myisam) has absolutely no support for foreign key constraints. You need to use an engine that supports them -- most commonly innodb.
If you specify a constraint when you're generating your DDL, a myisam table will accept the constraint but simply ignore it, so make sure all your related tables are setup/altered to be innodb tables before you add your constraint(s).
How do you add a constraint?
ALTER TABLE `event` ADD CONSTRAINT `category_event`
FOREIGN KEY (`category_id`) REFERENCES `category` (`category_id`);
In this example, it assumes your event table has the foreign key category_id in it, to create your linkage. After adding this constraint, if you attempt to delete a row from the category table, and an existing event row contains that key, mysql will disallow the DELETE and return an error. This is discussed in great detail here: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/innodb-foreign-key-constraints.html
When using a foreign key in a table, is it good form to change the name of the key for that table to make it clear what function the key performs in the table, or is it good form to retain the original name, to make it clear that it is a foreign key?
Example:
a table keeps track of users, the primary key is user_id
a second table stores articles on the website and keeps track of the author with the foreign key user_id.
In the context of the second table it would make more sense to call the foreign key author. In the context of the whole database it would make more sense to call the foreign key user_id
Is there a general convention that deals with this situation, or is that what comments are for?
Well, if you have a movie table you wouldn't want columns called person_id and person_id, but rather producer and director, or perhaps producer_id and director_id, or maybe producer_person_id and director_person_id.
I know movies can have multiple directors and multiple producers; this was just an example. Any case in which a table has two foreign keys to the same table will show you that you cannot in principle stick completely to a convention of using only the table name in the column name. You can use both (as in the producer_person_id example) but that leads to long column names.
Don't use comments. No one reads them. Okay that was just snark, perhaps, but in general favor descriptive names to comments!
Aside from the two-foreign-key issue, I'm not really aware of any univerally accepted convention.
It is conventional to know the database schema's modelling and designing. Whatever makes sense to the database administrator. Business logic is not concerned with how the database is named, only the results. For the database administrator if it make more sense to rename the foreign key author_id to refer to user_id of another table then do so and notate it in some documents that T2.author_id must exist in T1.user_id. When transitioning from modelling to designing the database (which is where you are now) it would make sense to just keep it simple, but you can change the foreign key names so long as you can remember them (and document them as well).
I have a Customers table, a Sports table, and Customers_Sports join table. The last table tells me which customers play what sports, ie contains foreign keys to the other two tables.
Foreign key constraints are enforced, and foreign keys cannot be null.
Using LINQ, is there a simple way to delete a customer and at the same time delete all the records in the join table that reference the customer?
I can do it the hard way, ie first delete relevant records from the join table, then delete the customer's record from Customers.
Simple is the real kicker. There's not an automatic way to do it. You're basically stuck deleting everything from the Customer_Sports table that matches the given customer, then deleting the customer yourself. I believe if you delete both before you do a SubmitChanges() you shouldn't run into any foreign key constraint violations.
If you wanted to get really fancy you could use reflection to create a generic function that would do this any time there was a foreign key kind of like Linq to SQL cascading delete with reflection .
Setting up the database to do this for you is probably a lot less error prone. The performance is probably better too, although unless you know you have a performance problem you shouldn't worry about performance.
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.
I have a website which I have been working on creating very rapidly, and now am paying back some technical debt. I have a complicated issue:
My site deals with scheduling hikes. Once you create a hike, it has many things associated with it:
a message board, list of attendees, the group it belongs to, the carpool, route, trailhead, etc.
Here is an example so you can see what I am talking about:
http://www.comehike.com/hikes/scheduled_hike.php?hike_id=172
The technical debt I am talking about is that I never made foreign keys in the DB, and now need to do a cascade delete, and I am not sure how to go about it so that I don't introduce a million bugs :)
Should I make foreign keys for all the tables now? How should I do this?
Thanks,
Alex
Check out the MySQL docs on FOREIGN KEY Constraints. Note that you'll need to be using innoDB tables.
ALTER TABLE <tablename>
ADD CONSTRAINT <fkname> FOREIGN KEY <index name>(<columns>)
REFERENCES <othertable> (<columns>)
ON DELETE CASCADE
I would suggest creating foreign keys for the tables in your DB. This will be a more robust way of dealing with the problem you are facing. You obviously understand what a foreign key imposes on the database, and how to deal with the keys.
If I was faced with this problem, I would use a graphical interface for the database if I had one (e.g. PhpMyAdmin), otherwise a quick google brings up some tutorials.
EDIT: From the linked tutorial, in a many-to-one relationship, you pace the key on the "many" table, indicating that a certain column in that table can only have values that are present in a certain column in the "one" table. Hi the link for a worked example.
When adding keys to a table that already has data, you may not be able to add the foreign key if some of the data is malformed. For example, if you have a phone number table referencing a person table (many phone numbers to one person) and you have any phone numbers with an invalid person_id (maybe person 5 was deleted and there is still a phone number with a person_id of 5) you will be unable to create the foreign key until you remove the offending phone number.
if you have not made formal foreign keys, the have you made the keys some other way that permits linking the tables or are all tables unrelated ?
If there is anyway to relate the tables then you will simply have to write a Cascading Delete code.
Otherwise its probabely a redesign or add in foreignkey fun. =))
If you have not already get yourself a copy of MySQL Workbench and redesign it from there adding in the foreign keys. This will generate the SQL code for you too.
I would go with creating foreign keys as well but if there is any reason that stops you from doing so there is another solution which is creating Triggers. You can tell triggers to basically do anything you want when an update,delete or insertion occurs to a table in the database including changing other tuples in other tables. Here are a couple of tutorials on how to create triggers:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/itss/docs/oracle/10g/server.101/b10759/statements_7004.htm
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189799.aspx
the first one seems more direct and clearer but if none of them helps just search google for DB triggers and you're all set!
I hope this helps :)