I have a table like this in my database
http://i.stack.imgur.com/BsoS9.png
I have all my PK,FK relationships setup and im ready to start inserting data.
However I do not know where to start.
Do I insert into tables where my Primary Keys are first.
But then how do I give my Foreign keys the values of the primary key in the linking tables?
I thought with starting with:
-Patient
-Department
-Procedure
-Staff
-Events
-Supplies
Any reference material would be appreciated, I tried googling my question but not luck. Perhaps someone could eloquote it more accurately.
You thought correctly, start with the foremost "parent" table, and work your way down. Inserting the foreign keys can be done either with nested queries or simply getting the key, storing it, and reusing it.
Personally I'd go with nested queries.
Yes, you'll need to logically populate the parent records first. Obviously, you cannot insert a child record without having a parent existing first -- so long as you have true relationships between the two. In your case, just as your diagram suggests, you'll need to populate Events before you can populate Supplies. And then, what ever other logical ties you have.
Related
I’m pretty new to PowerApps and need to migrate an Access database over to PowerApps, first of all it’s tables to Dataverse. It’s a typical use case for a model-driven app, with many relationships between the tables. All Access tables had an autogenerated ID field as their primary key.
I transferred all tables via Excel ex/import to Dataverse. Before importing,I renamed all ID fields (columns) to ID_old and let Dataverse create its own, autogenerated ID field for each table.
What I want to achieve is to re-establish all relationships between the tables, where the foreign key points to the new primary key provided by Dataverse, as I want to avoid double keys. As a first step I created relationships between the ID_old field and the corresponding (old) foreign key field in the related table.
In good old Access, I’d now simply run an update query, filling the new (yet empty) foreign key field with the new ID of the related table. Finally, I would change the relationship to the new primary and foreign keys and then delete the old ID fields.
Where I got stuck is the update query. I searched the net and found a couple of options like UpdateIf / Patch functions or Power Query or Excel ex/import and some more. They all read pretty complicated and time intensive and I think I must have overseen a very simple solution for such a pretty common problem.
Is there someone out there who might point me in the right (and simple) direction? Thanks!
A more efficient approach would be to start with creating extra ID columns in Access. Generate your GUIDs and fix your foreign keys there. This can be done efficiently using a few SQL update statements.
When it comes to transferring your Access tables to Dataverse you just provide your Access shadow primary keys in the Create message.
I solved the issue as follows, which is pretty efficient in my perception. I”m assuming you have a auto-numbered ID field in every Access table, which you used for your relationships
Export your tables from Access to Excel.
Rename your ID fields to ID_old in all tables using Excel, as well as your foreign key fields to e.g. ForeignKey_old. This will make it easy to identify the fields later in Dataverse.
Import into Dataverse, using the Power Query tool. Important: Make sure, that you choose ID_old as additional primary key field in the last import step.
Re-create all relationships in Dataverse, using the Lookup datatype. This will create a new, yet empty column in your table.
Now use the “Edit in Excel” feature to open your table in Excel. You should get your prefix_foreignkey_old column with the old foreign keys displayed, as well as the reference to your related table, e.g. prefix_referencetable.prefix_id_old, which is still empty.
Now just copy the complete prefix_foreignkey_old column values into the prefix_referencetable.prefix_id_old column.
Import the changes and you’re done.
Hope this is helpful for some of you out there.
I am creating two tables in a database in MySQL just so I can play around with SQL and learn more, as I am a novice. I have read several questions on Stack relating to inserting a new row, and updating an existing row. My question is a little different, hopefully it won't be considered a dupe as none of the other answers I read gave me the full explanation I need because I think it's the auto-increment part that's confusing me. I don't think I can just go in and assign a new value for the primary keys in one of the tables with auto-increment set up, can I?
I have two tables: english_words and spanish_words. Their primary keys are respectively eng_id and span_id, and are set up to auto-increment. My hope had been to practice SQL and eventually get things set up enough so that I can practice my joins later on. For now, in english_words, I entered a duplicate row by mistake, with the ID 7. I deleted that row, and of course it now goes "6...8..." ..... and when I created my spanish_words table, I forgot all about the missing row 7. I'd hoped to keep everything very simple and aligned between the two tables until I'm ready for more complex endeavors later. Is there a way I can either:
Bump row 7 (and all subsequent rows) down by one in my spanish_words (so 7 becomes 8, 8 becomes 9, etc)
OR
Pull up everything after row 6 in english_words?
OR
Is there a better solution than either of those that you could suggest?
It's possible there's not a way. Originally I'd thought of trying to UPDATE the row 7 data in english_words or maybe insert a new row, but in my research I found an answer on Stack that said you can't insert data into a specific row in the table...and then I realized that's not going to fix anything anyway.
Do those of you more experienced with SQL have any ideas? (Aside from not making such silly mistakes anyway).
Additionally, I'm open to scrapping my tables and starting again, if there's a best-practice that I'm missing. Would setting up a foreign key to correspond between the two tables be a way to fix this? I'm pretty sure you have to do that anyway to perform the joins, but I was going to cross that bridge when I get there. What is best practice amongst database admins - set up foreign keys early on, or later when you need them?
Thanks in advance for your guidance.
A better way to set this up is to create a relation table:
CREATE TABLE translation (
eng_id int,
span_id int,
FOREIGN KEY (eng_id) REFERENCES english_words (eng_id),
FOREIGN KEY (span_id) REFERENCES spanish_words (span_id)
)
This is better than using a foreign key in the original tables, because you can't have bidirection foreign keys (you have to create the referenced row before the referencing row, so whichever table you insert into first can't have a foreign key pointing to the other one).
First of all, my apologies if this question is a duplicate - but I find it difficult, putting short, precise words on my problem.
I've got these entities.
The left contains several groups (like in Unix, in order to make data available to a whole group at once) and at the moment, it's always 1. The right one contains projects - and the middle one makes sure, that one group can gain access to several projects.
As you can see, there are foreign key relationships among them. Now, I want to create a new project in nmd__tree. When doing that, it returns an error:
Cannot add or update a child row: a foreign key constraint fails
(nmd.nmd__tree, CONSTRAINT FK_nmd__tree FOREIGN KEY (treeid)
REFERENCES nmd__helperusergrouphierarchy (treeidfk))
This makes sense, since the nmd_tree relies on a valid foreign key in the helper entity - but at the same time, it presents the problem, that the treeidfk isn't yet known, since it is autogenerated in nmd__tree
A solution could be to remove the relations, insert the record in nmd__tree, extract the newly written primary key (treeid) and create a record in the middle helper entity with the new id. It will work, but is really not very elegant. Also, removed relations presents other, potential problems.
My intentions are to create a query, that deals with this problem by creating both records at once. I know, it isn't possible to make a double insert and found this suggestion (my version doesn't write any records), as well as an article, suggesting stored procedures, which I don't see should make a difference
I would really appreciate a push in the right direction, please.
It seems you've got your constraints defined in the wrong direction; The middle table should have two foreign key constraints not the two end tables. That way, you can insert records in the two end tables and then link them up using the middle table.
I have a MySql database containing data about users of an application. This application is in production already, however improvements are added every day. The last improvement I've made changed the way data is collected and inserted into the database.
Just to be clearer, my database is composed of 5 tables containing user data and 1 table to relate all the tables, through foreign keys. These 5 foreign keys, together, form my Unique Index for this "Main Table" I have.
The issue is that one of these tables containing user data changed its format, and I want to remove all the data older than the modification I made on my application (just from this table, the other ones I need to keep untouched). However, this dataset has foreign keys in the main table, and I can't just drop these lines on the main table because the other informations I have are important. I tried to change the value of the foreign key for this table, in specific, but then, obviously, I have a problem related to duplicated indexes.
Reading on internet, I've found a solution to my problem using "Insert ... On duplicate key update ...", but i'm not inserting data, just updating it. I have an Idea about how to make a program on PHP to update my database, but is there another easier solution? Is it possible to avoid these problems using just MySql syntax?
might be worth looking at the below link
http://www.kavoir.com/2009/05/mysql-insert-if-doesnt-exist-otherwise-update-the-existing-row.html
I was wondering if there is a way to create a foreign key for a list of integers that responds on single integer elements of the list.
For example, I have an "exercises" table. On that table, I would like to maintain two related columns:
"exercisesID"
"relatedExerciseIDs"
However, "relatedExerciseIDs" is a VARCHAR containing comma-delimited "exerciseID"s. On a deletion of an exercise from the table, any exercises with the deleted "exerciseID" in their "relatedExerciseIDs" list should remove it.
Is this possible? How can I do this?
Thanks for your opinions! I would also be interested in using a column type other than a VARCHAR if shown possible =)
All column values should be atomic.
You should not have a list of anything you want to query inside a single value.
The way to relate exercises to other exercises is with a second table. It will have two columns, each holding an exercise ID, where both columns are a foreign reference the exercises table.
The only way to do that is either via a stored procedure or in your language of choice. When you delete the record, you would then have to do a LIKE query to find any record with the value in your delimited field. It's really not the best way to do things, and would be slow as hell since you can't index that field the way you need to.
Your absolute best bet would be to create another table to define the relationships between exercises, using just two exercise id fields (exercise_id, related_exercise_id).
You should read up on Database Normalization.