I have two tables permissions and groups of many to many relationship
CREATE TABLE `permissions` (
`Permission_Id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`Permission_Name` varchar(50) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`Permission_Id`)
)
Groups table
CREATE TABLE `groups` (
`Group_Id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`Group_Desc` varchar(100) DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`Group_Id`)
)
I am confuse how to implement the many to many relationship
which is better to create a composite primary key of Group_id and Permission_id in a new table
Or to create a new table & select the columns from the two table using join keyword .
From my blog:
Do it this way.
CREATE TABLE XtoY (
# No surrogate id for this table
x_id MEDIUMINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, -- For JOINing to one table
y_id MEDIUMINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, -- For JOINing to the other table
# Include other fields specific to the 'relation'
PRIMARY KEY(x_id, y_id), -- When starting with X
INDEX (y_id, x_id) -- When starting with Y
) ENGINE=InnoDB;
Notes:
⚈ Lack of an AUTO_INCREMENT id for this table -- The PK given is the 'natural' PK; there is no good reason for a surrogate.
⚈ "MEDIUMINT" -- This is a reminder that all INTs should be made as small as is safe (smaller ⇒ faster). Of course the declaration here must match the definition in the table being linked to.
⚈ "UNSIGNED" -- Nearly all INTs may as well be declared non-negative
⚈ "NOT NULL" -- Well, that's true, isn't it?
⚈ "InnoDB" -- More effecient than MyISAM because of the way the PRIMARY KEY is clustered with the data in InnoDB.
⚈ "INDEX(y_id, x_id)" -- The PRIMARY KEY makes it efficient to go one direction; this index makes the other direction efficient. No need to say UNIQUE; that would be extra effort on INSERTs.
⚈ In the secondary index, saying just INDEX(y_id) would work because it would implicit include x_id. But I would rather make it more obvious that I am hoping for a 'covering' index.
To conditionally INSERT new links, use IODKU
Note that if you had an AUTO_INCREMENT in this table, IODKU would "burn" ids quite rapidly.
More
A FOREIGN KEY implicitly creates an index on the column(s) involved.
PRIMARY KEY(a,b) (1) says that the combo (a,b) is UNIQUE, and (2) orders the data by (a,b).
INDEX(a), INDEX(b) (whether generated by FOREIGN KEY or generated manually) is not the same as INDEX(a,b).
InnoDB really needs a PRIMARY KEY, so you may as well say PRIMARY KEY (a,b) instead of UNIQUE(a,b).
I know the solution.
I need a to create "junction" table to hold many-to-many relationship in this case.
CREATE TABLE Groups_Permissions
(
Group_Id INT,
Permission_Id INT,
)
The combination of Group_Id and Permmission_Id should be UNIQUE and have FK to groups and permission tables.
i need help. As you can see in my tables i have to setup primary and forign keys and i need help on this cascade updates.
For example i have a task like this:
If the value for Category_Name is changed in CATEGORY, the change should be reflected here as well.
But this doesent work :
If an OrderID in ORDERED is changed, then the change should be reflected here as well.
If an ORDERED is deleted, then any LINE_ITEM(s)associated with that order should also be deleted.
If the Item_Number of an ITEM is changed, then the change should be reflected here as well.
I dont know how to setup this correctly and i need help to better understand this.
CREATE DATABASE TEST1;
USE TEST1;
CREATE TABLE CATEGORY (
CategoryName VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL,
ShippingPerPound CHAR(4),
OffersAlowed ENUM('y', 'n'),
CONSTRAINT CATEGORY_PK PRIMARY KEY (CategoryName)
) ENGINE=INNODB;
CREATE TABLE ITEM(
ItemNumber INT UNSIGNED AUTO_INCREMENT,
Item_Name VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL,
Description VARCHAR(255),
Model VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
Price CHAR(8) NOT NULL,
parent_ItemNumber INT,
CategoryName VARCHAR(35),
CONSTRAINT ITEM_PK PRIMARY KEY (ItemNumber),
CONSTRAINT ITEM_CategoryName_fk FOREIGN KEY (CategoryName) REFERENCES
CATEGORY(CategoryName) ON UPDATE CASCADE)
ENGINE=INNODB;
CREATE table LINE_ITEM(
Quantitiy INT(255),
Shipping_amounth DECIMAL(4,2),
ItemNumber INT UNSIGNED,
OrderID INT UNSIGNED,
CONSTRAINT LINE_ITEM_PK PRIMARY KEY(ItemNumber),
CONSTRAINT LINE_ITEM_PK PRIMARY KEY(OrderID),
CONSTRAINT LINE_ITEM_OrderID FOREIGN KEY (OrderID) REFERENCES ORDERED(OrderID) ON UPDATE CASCADE),
CONSTRAINT LINE_ITEM_OrderID FOREIGN KEY (OrderID) REFERENCES ORDERED(OrderID) ON UPDATE DELETE),
CONSTRAINT LINE_ITEM_ItemNumber_fk FOREIGN KEY (ItemNumber) REFERENCES ITEM(ItemNumber) ON UPDATE CASCADE)
ENGINE=INNODB;
CREATE TABLE OFFER(
OfferCode varchar(15),
Discount_Amt varchar(35) NOT NULL,
MinAmount DECIMAL(2,2) NOT NULL,
ExpirationDate DATE NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT OFFER_OfferCode PRIMARY KEY(OfferCode)
)
ENGINE=INNODB;
CREATE TABLE ORDERED(
OrderID INT UNSIGNED AUTO_INCREMENT,
total_cost DECIMAL(8,2),
CONSTRAINT ORDERED_PK PRIMARY KEY (OrderID),
CONSTRAINT OFFER_OfferCode FOREIGN KEY (OrderID) REFERENCES OFFER(OfferCode) ON UPDATE CASCADE),
CONSTRAINT CUSTOMER_CustomerID FOREIGN KEY (CustomerID) REFERENCES CUSTOMER(CustomerID) ON UPDATE CASCADE)
)
ENGINE=INNODB;
If the value for Category_Name is changed in CATEGORY, the change should be reflected [in the tables which reference Category] as well.
You have an XY Problem. You've already chosen a solution to your problem (using cascading updates) and asked about that. It's not a good solution, it just papers over the real. Instead, you should ask about the real problem.
The real problem is you have duplicate data, CategoryName is stored in two places. The question is how one deals with that? The answer is to redesign the schema to eliminate the duplication.
Looking at the Category table reveals the real real problem, CategoryName is the primary key, so it will be referenced in other tables. But if CategoryName can change it's a poor choice for a primary key. Instead, use a simple auto incrementing integer as the primary key and the problem goes away.
create table Category (
ID integer auto_increment primary key,
Name varchar(255) not null,
ShippingPerPound CHAR(4),
OffersAlowed ENUM('y', 'n'),
);
Now categories can be referenced using CategoryID integer references category(id). Category names can change as much as they like. Any query needing to know the category name will have to do a join Category on Category.id = CategoryID; simple joins like that are cheap.
If the Item_Number of an ITEM is changed, then the change should be reflected [in the tables which reference Item] as well.
Same problem: if the primary key can change, it's not a good primary key. Since Item_Number is auto incremented it should never change, so you might be worrying about a problem that doesn't exist.
If Item_Number can change, then you need two columns. One for the immutable primary key, just call it id, and one for the mutable Item_Number. They can be the same thing for most columns, that's fine, it just adds 4 bytes to each column.
Note that I increased the name constraint to 255. It's a bad practice to put business rules, like size limits on names, into the database schema. The database should not be limiting design choices, and there's no technical reason to limit it: 30 characters in a varchar(255) takes up as much space as 30 characters in varchar(30).
I'd also question why ShippingPerPound is a char(4). It seems it should be a number, probably a numeric(9,2) for money. numeric will store exact values and does not suffer from floating point error, it's a good choice for money.
Finally, I'd caution against using an unsigned integer as a primary key. Yes, it doubles your keyspace, but I can guarantee people referencing that key will forget and use a plain, signed integer. If you hit 2 billion rows it's likely you're growing so rapidly that you'll blow through the next 2 billion much faster than the first, so it isn't worth it. If you're really concerned about keyspace, use a bigint or UUID. But this isn't something you need to worry about now, tables can be altered later if it becomes an issue. But it's unlikely to be an issue for Items as it's unlikely you'll have 2 billion items. Keyspace exhaustion is something that happens to tables that are logging things, or tracking sales, things which grow exponentially as you get more users; not manually entered warehouse data.
Old database guides sometimes encourage bad practices like trying to use data as a primary key, or putting unnecessary limits on storage sizes. That might have made sense when disk and CPU was extremely limited, or when column sizes were fixed, but it makes little sense now. An auto incremented integer primary key is a good default choice.
This is a question about database design. Say I have several tables, some of which each have a common expiry field.
CREATE TABLE item (
id INT PRIMARY KEY
)
CREATE TABLE coupon (
id INT PRIMARY KEY FOREIGN KEY (`item.id`),
expiry DATE NOT NULL
)
CREATE TABLE subscription (
id INT PRIMARY KEY FOREIGN KEY (`item.id`),
expiry DATE NOT NULL
)
CREATE TABLE product(
id INT PRIMARY KEY FOREIGN KEY (`item.id`),
name VARCHAR(32)
)
The expiry column does need to be indexed so I can easily query by expiry.
My question is, should I pull the expiry column into another table like so?
CREATE TABLE item (
id INT PRIMARY KEY
)
CREATE TABLE expiry(
id INT PRIMARY KEY,
expiry DATE NOT NULL
)
CREATE TABLE coupon (
id INT PRIMARY KEY FOREIGN KEY (`item.id`),
expiry_id INT NOT NULL FOREIGN KEY(`expiry.id`)
)
CREATE TABLE subscription (
id INT PRIMARY KEY FOREIGN KEY (`item.id`),
expiry_id INT NOT NULL FOREIGN KEY(`expiry.id`)
)
CREATE TABLE product(
id INT PRIMARY KEY FOREIGN KEY (`item.id`),
name VARCHAR(32)
)
Another possible solution is to pull the expiry into another base "class" table.
CREATE TABLE item (
id INT PRIMARY KEY
)
CREATE TABLE expiring_item (
id INT PRIMARY KEY FOREIGN KEY(`item.id`),
expiry DATE NOT NULL
)
CREATE TABLE coupon (
id INT PRIMARY KEY FOREIGN KEY (`expiring_item .id`),
)
CREATE TABLE subscription (
id INT PRIMARY KEY FOREIGN KEY (`expiring_item .id`),
)
CREATE TABLE product(
id INT PRIMARY KEY FOREIGN KEY (`item.id`),
name VARCHAR(32)
)
Given the nature of databases in that refactoring the table structure is difficult once they are being used, I am having trouble weighing the pros and cons of each approach.
From what I see, the first approach uses the least number of table joins, however, I will have redundant data for each expiring item. The second approach seems good, in that any time I need to add an expiry to an item I simply add a foreign key to that table. But, if I discover expiring items (or a subset of expiring items) actually share another attribute then I need to add another table for that. I like the third approach best, because it brings me closest to an OOP like hierarchy. However, I worry that is my personal bias towards OOP programming, and database tables do not use composition in the same way OOP class inheritance does.
Sorry for the poor SQL syntax ahead of time.
I would stick with the first design as 'redundant' data is still valid data if only as a record of what was valid at a point in time and it also allows for renewal with minimum impact. Also the second option makes no great sense as the expiry is an arbritrary item that has no real context outside of the table referencing, in other words unless it is associated with a coupon or a subscription it is an orphan value. Finally the third option makes no more sense in that at what point does a item become expiring? as soon as it is defined? at a set period before expiry...at the end of the day the expiry is an distinct attribute which happens to have the same name and purpose for both the coupon and the subscription but which isn't related to each other or as such the item.
Do not normalize "continuous" values such as datetime, float, int, etc. It makes it very inefficient to do any kind of range test on expiry.
Anyway, a DATE takes 3 bytes; an INT takes 4, so the change would increase the disk footprint for no good reason.
So, use the first, not the second. But...
As for the third, you say "expirations are independent", yet you propose having a single expiry?? Which is it??
If they are not independent, then another principle comes into play. "Don't have redundant data in a database." So, if the same expiry really applies to multiple connected tables, it should be in only one of the tables. Then the third schema is the best. (Exception: There may be a performance issue, but I doubt it.)
If there are different dates for coupon/subscription/etc, then you must not use the third.
I have 2 tables, each with their own auto incremented IDs, which are of course primary keys.
When I want to create a 3rd table to establish the relation between these 2 tables, I always have an error.
First one is that you can have only 1 automatically-incremented column, the second one occurs when I delete the auto_increment statement from those 2, therefore AQL doesn't allow me to make them foreign keys, because of the type matching failure.
Is there a way that I can create a relational table without losing auto increment features?
Another possible (but not preferred) solution may be there is another primary key in the first table, which is the username of the user, not with an auto_increment statement, of course. Is it inevitable?
Thanks in advance.
1 Concept
You have misunderstood some basic concepts, and the difficulties result from that. We have to address the concepts first, not the problem as you perceive it, and consequently, your problem will disappear.
auto incremented IDs, which are of course primary keys.
No, they are not. That is a common misconception. And problems are guaranteed to ensue.
An ID field cannot be a Primary Key in the English or technical or Relational senses.
Sure, in SQL, you can declare any field to be a PRIMARY KEY, but that doesn't magically transform it into a Primary Key in the English, technical, or Relational senses. You can name a chihuahua "Rottweiller", but that doesn't transform it into a Rottweiller, it remains a chihuahua. Like any language, SQL simply executes the commands that you give it, it does not understand PRIMARY KEY to mean something Relational, it just whacks an unique index on the column (or field).
The problem is, since you have declared the ID to be a PRIMARY KEY, you think of it as a Primary Key, and you may expect that it has some of qualities of a Primary Key. Except for the uniqueness of the ID value, it provides no benefit. It has none of the qualities of a Primary Key, or any sort of Relational Key for that matter. It is not a Key in the English, technical, or Relational senses. By declaring a non-key to be a key, you will only confuse yourself, and you will find out that there is something terribly wrong only when the user complains about duplicates in the table.
2 Relational Model
2.1 Relational tables must have row uniqueness
A PRIMARY KEY on an ID field does not provide row uniqueness. Therefore it is not a Relational table containing rows, and if it isn't that, then it is a file containing records. It doesn't have any of the integrity, or power (at this stage you will be aware of join power only), or speed, that a table in a Relational database has.
Execute this code (MS SQL) and prove it to yourself. Please do not simply read this and understand it, and then proceed to read the rest of this Answer, this code must be executed before reading further. It has curative value.
-- [1] Dumb, broken file
-- Ensures unique RECORDS, allows duplicate ROWS
CREATE TABLE dumb_file (
id INT IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY,
name_first CHAR(30),
name_last CHAR(30)
)
INSERT dumb_file VALUES
( 'Mickey', 'Mouse' ),
( 'Mickey', 'Mouse' ),
( 'Mickey', 'Mouse' )
SELECT *
FROM dumb_file
Notice that you have duplicate rows. Relational tables are required to have unique rows. Further proof that you do not have a relational table, or any of the qualities of one.
Notice that in your report, the only thing that is unique is the ID field, which no user cares about, no user sees, because it is not data, it is some additional nonsense that some very stupid "teacher" told you to put in every file. You have record uniqueness but not row uniqueness.
In terms of the data (the real data minus the extraneous additions), the data name_last and name_first can exist without the ID field. A person has a first name and last name without an ID being stamped on their forehead.
The second thing that you are using that confuses you is the AUTOINCREMENT. If you are implementing a record filing system with no Relational capability, sure, it is helpful, you don't have to code the increment when inserting records. But if you are implementing a Relational Database, it serves no purpose at all, because you will never use it. There are many features in SQL that most people never use.
2.2 Corrective Action
So how do you upgrade, elevate, that dumb_file that is full of duplicate rows to a Relational table, in order to get some of the qualities and benefits of a Relational table ? There are three steps to this.
You need to understand Keys
And since we have progressed from ISAM files of the 1970's, to the Relational Model, you need to understand Relational Keys. That is, if you wish to obtain the benefits (integrity, power, speed) of a Relational Database.
In Codd's Relational Model:
a key is made up from the data
and
the rows in a table must be unique
Your "key" is not made up from the data. It is some additional, non-data parasite, caused by your being infected with the disease of your "teacher". Recognise it as such, and allow yourself the full mental capacity that God gave you (notice that I do not ask you to think in isolated or fragmented or abstract terms, all the elements in a database must be integrated with each other).
Make up a real key from the data, and only from the data. In this case, there is only one possible Key: (name_last, name_first).
Try this code, declare an unique constraint on the data:
-- [2] dumb_file fixed, elevated to table, prevents duplicate rows
-- still dumb
CREATE TABLE dumb_table (
id INT IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY,
name_first CHAR(30),
name_last CHAR(30),
CONSTRAINT UK
UNIQUE ( name_last, name_first )
)
INSERT dumb_table VALUES
( 'Mickey', 'Mouse' ),
( 'Minnie', 'Mouse' )
SELECT *
FROM dumb_table
INSERT dumb_table VALUES
( 'Mickey', 'Mouse' )
Now we have row uniqueness. That is the sequence that happens to most people: they create a file which allows dupes; they have no idea why dupes are appearing in the drop-downs; the user screams; they tweak the file and add an index to prevent dupes; they go to the next bug fix. (They may do so correctly or not, that is a different story.)
The second level. For thinking people who think beyond the fix-its. Since we have now row uniqueness, what in Heaven's name is the purpose of the ID field, why do we even have it ??? Oh, because the chihuahua is named Rotty and we are afraid to touch it.
The declaration that it is a PRIMARY KEY is false, but it remains, causing confusion and false expectations. The only genuine Key there is, is the (name_last, name_fist), and it is a Alternate Key at this point.
Therefore the ID field is totally superfluous; and so is the index that supports it; and so is the stupid AUTOINCREMENT; and so is the false declaration that it is a PRIMARY KEY; and any expectations you may have of it are false.
Therefore remove the superfluous ID field. Try this code:
-- [3] Relational Table
-- Now that we have prevented duplicate data, the id field
-- AND its additional index serves no purpose, it is superfluous,
-- like an udder on a bull. If we remove the field AND the
-- supporting index, we obtain a Relational table.
CREATE TABLE relational_table (
name_first CHAR(30),
name_last CHAR(30),
CONSTRAINT PK
PRIMARY KEY ( name_last, name_first )
)
INSERT relational_table VALUES
( 'Mickey', 'Mouse' ),
( 'Minnie', 'Mouse' )
SELECT *
FROM relational_table
INSERT relational_table VALUES
( 'Mickey', 'Mouse' )
Works just fine, works as intended, without the extraneous fields and indices.
Please remember this, and do it right, every single time.
2.3 False Teachers
In these end times, as advised, we will have many of them. Note well, the "teachers" who propagate ID columns, by virtue of the detailed evidence in this post, simply do not understand the Relational Model or Relational Databases. Especially those who write books about it.
As evidenced, they are stuck in pre-1970 ISAM technology. That is all they understand, and that is all that they can teach. They use an SQL database container, for the ease of Access, recovery, backup, etc, but the content is pure Record Filing System with no Relational Integrity, Power, or speed. AFAIC, it is a serious fraud.
In addition to ID fields, of course, there are several items that are key Relational-or-not concepts, that taken together, cause me to form such a grave conclusion. Those other items are beyond the scope of this post.
One particular pair of idiots is currently mounting an assault on First Normal Form. They belong in the asylum.
3 Solution
Now for the rest of your question.
3.1 Answers
Is there a way that I can create a relational table without losing auto increment features?
That is a self-contradicting sentence. I trust you will understand from my explanation, Relational tables have no need for AUTOINCREMENT "features"; if the file has AUTOINCREMENT, it is not a Relational table.
AUTOINCREMENT or IDENTITY is good for one thing only: if, and only if, you want to create an Excel spreadsheet in the SQL database container, replete with fields named A, B, and C, across the top, and record numbers down the left side. In database terms, that is the result of a SELECT, a flattened view of the data, that is not the source of data, which is organised (Normalised).
Another possible (but not preferred) solution may be there is another primary key in the first table, which is the username of the user, not with an auto increment statement, of course. Is it inevitable?
In technical work, we don't care about preferences, because that is subjective, and it changes all the time. We care about technical correctness, because that is objective, and it does not change.
Yes, it is inevitable. Because it is just a matter of time; number of bugs; number of "can't dos"; number of user screams, until you face the facts, overcome your false declarations, and realise that:
the only way to ensure that user rows are unique, that user_names are unique, is to declare an UNIQUE constraint on it
and get rid of user_id or id in the user file
which promotes user_name to PRIMARY KEY
Yes, because your entire problem with the third table, not coincidentally, is then eliminated.
That third table is an Associative Table. The only Key required (Primary Key) is a composite of the two parent Primary Keys. That ensures uniqueness of the rows, which are identified by their Keys, not by their IDs.
I am warning you about that because the same "teachers" who taught you the error of implementing ID fields, teach the error of implementing ID fields in the Associative Table, where, just as with an ordinary table, it is superfluous, serves no purpose, introduces duplicates, and causes confusion. And it is doubly superfluous because the two keys that provide are already there, staring us in the face.
Since they do not understand the RM, or Relational terms, they call Associative Tables "link" or "map" tables. If they have an ID field, they are in fact, files.
3.2 Lookup Tables
ID fields are particularly Stupid Thing to Do for Lookup or Reference tables. Most of them have recognisable codes, there is no need to enumerate the list of codes in them, because the codes are (should be) unique.
ENUM is just as stupid, but for a different reason: it locks you into an anti-SQL method, a "feature" in that non-compliant "SQL".
Further, having the codes in the child tables as FKs, is a Good Thing: the code is much more meaningful, and it often saves an unnecessary join:
SELECT ...
FROM child_table -- not the lookup table
WHERE gender_code = "M" -- FK in the child, PK in the lookup
instead of:
SELECT ...
FROM child_table
WHERE gender_id = 6 -- meaningless to the maintainer
or worse:
SELECT ...
FROM child_table C -- that you are trying to determine
JOIN lookup_table L
ON C.gender_id = L.gender_id
WHERE L.gender_code = "M" -- meaningful, known
Note that this is something one cannot avoid: you need uniqueness on the lookup code and uniqueness on the description. That is the only method to prevent duplicates in each of the two columns:
CREATE TABLE gender (
gender_code CHAR(2) NOT NULL,
name CHAR(30) NOT NULL
CONSTRAINT PK
PRIMARY KEY ( gender_code )
CONSTRAINT AK
UNIQUE ( name )
)
3.3 Full Example
From the details in your question, I suspect that you have SQL syntax and FK definition issues, so I will give the entire solution you need as an example (since you have not given file definitions):
CREATE TABLE user ( -- Typical Identifying Table
user_name CHAR(16) NOT NULL, -- Short PK
name_first CHAR(30) NOT NULL, -- Alt Key.1
name_last CHAR(30) NOT NULL, -- Alt Key.2
birth_date DATE NOT NULL -- Alt Key.3
CONSTRAINT PK -- unique user_name
PRIMARY KEY ( user_name )
CONSTRAINT AK -- unique person identification
PRIMARY KEY ( name_last, name_first, birth_date )
)
CREATE TABLE sport ( -- Typical Lookup Table
sport_code CHAR(4) NOT NULL, -- PK Short code
name CHAR(30) NOT NULL -- AK
CONSTRAINT PK
PRIMARY KEY ( sport_code )
CONSTRAINT AK
PRIMARY KEY ( name )
)
CREATE TABLE user_sport ( -- Typical Associative Table
user_name CHAR(16) NOT NULL, -- PK.1, FK
sport_code CHAR(4) NOT NULL, -- PK.2, FK
start_date DATE NOT NULL
CONSTRAINT PK
PRIMARY KEY ( user_name, sport_code )
CONSTRAINT user_plays_sport_fk
FOREIGN KEY ( user_name )
REFERENCES user ( user_name )
CONSTRAINT sport_occupies_user_fk
FOREIGN KEY ( sport_code )
REFERENCES sport ( sport_code )
)
There, the PRIMARY KEY declaration is honest, it is a Primary Key; no ID; no AUTOINCREMENT; no extra indices; no duplicate rows; no erroneous expectations; no consequential problems.
3.4 Relational Data Model
Here is the Data Model to go with the definitions.
As a PDF
If you are not used to the Notation, please be advised that every little tick, notch, and mark, the solid vs dashed lines, the square vs round corners, means something very specific. Refer to the IDEF1X Notation.
A picture is worth a thousand words; in this case a standard-complaint picture is worth more than that; a bad one is not worth the paper it is drawn on.
Please check the Verb Phrases carefully, they comprise a set of Predicates. The remainder of the Predicates can be determined directly from the model. If this is not clear, please ask.
DBLint is used to check database status. There are 46 rules. At www.dblint.org there are some simple explainations of each rule, but the Rule 31 which is described as below:
Defined Primary Key is not a Minimal Key:
A primary key is a minimal superkey. If the defined primary key is not a minimal superkey, it means that it is possible to identify a row with fewer attributes. Using a superkey instead of a primary key is even less attractive when other tables need to reference it. Each of the referencing tables will need to hold more information than actual needed, resulting in using more space and less efficient indices.
which is not quite clearify for me. If someone could explain this, Thank You!
A primary key is a super key if as subset of the columns in the primary key can also be used to uniquely identify a row.
Example:
Let's say you have a table containing all employees in a company. Each person gets an id but you also have a requirement that each person have a unique alias consistent of three letters for login name, email etc. This table could be:
create table employee
(
empID int not null auto_increment,
alias nvarchar(3) not null unique,
forname nvarchar(256) not null,
lastname nvarchar(256) not null,
constraint employee_pk primary key (empID, alias)
)
In this table the primary key is the combination of the empID and the persons three letter alias, but both the empID and the alias is required to be unique hence the primary key is a super key. It would be enough to only use a subset of the columns, e.g., the empID as a primary key to uniquely identify a single row, hence that will be a minimal super key.