I am attempting to build a database for inventory control using a large number of tables and enforced relationships, and I just ran into the 32-relationship (index) limit for an Access table (using Access 2007).
Just to clarify: the problem isn't that the Employees table has 32 explicit indexes. Rather, the problem is the limitation on the number of times the Employee table can be referenced in FOREIGN KEY constraints. For example:
CREATE TABLE Employees (employee_number INTEGER NOT NULL UNIQUE)
;
CREATE TABLE Table01 (employee_number INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES Employees (employee_number))
;
CREATE TABLE Table02 (employee_number INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES Employees (employee_number))
;
CREATE TABLE Table03 (employee_number INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES Employees (employee_number))
;
...
CREATE TABLE Table30 (employee_number INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES Employees (employee_number))
;
CREATE TABLE Table31 (employee_number INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES Employees (employee_number))
;
CREATE TABLE Table32 (employee_number INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES Employees (employee_number))
;
An exception is thrown on the last line above, "Could not create index; too many indexes defined.
What options do I have to work around this limitation?
I've heard that creating a duplicate table with a 1:1 relationship is one method. I'm new to database design, so please correct me if I'm wrong; but given a table Employees with 31 indexes, I would create a table Employees2(with one field?) with a 1:1 relationship to Employees and relationships to this new table from any remaining relations in which EmployeeID is a foreign key. What's the best way to ensure the second table is populated alongside the first?
Is there another approach?
Based on the lack of information available, it seems this may be a rare problem with a properly-designed database, or the solution is common knowledge. Forgive the noob!
Update: Immediate consensus is that my design is borked or far too ambitious. This could very well be the case. However, I'd rather have a general design discussion within a separate question, so for the sake of argument, can someone answer this one? If the answer is simply "Don't ever do that" I'll have to accept it.
I've run into this limitation a number of times with my apps. And I can assure the other posters that my apps are very well designed.
One problem is that Access creates indexes due to relationships and lookup fields that aren't viewable on the main index property box but they are accessible via DAO collections. These indexes are frequently duplicate indexes to indexes you have created as well.
I have a tool consisting of several forms you import into your BE MDB that allows you to remove the duplicate indexes. As I haven't yet made this available on my website please email me for it.
I'd suggest just not defining all the relationships/indexes to implementing a 1:1 relationship to get around it. Neither solution is optimal, but the later is going to create a much higher maintenance burden and data anomaly potential.
I am not going to decry the design as quicky as some of the others, but it does have me intrigued. Could you list the fields of the employee table that are foreign keys? There is a good liklihood that some normalization is in order and maybe some of the smart people on SO could make some design suggestions to work around the issue.
It is hard for me to believe that an Employee table would need 32 indexes; if it actually does you should consider migrating to at least SQL Express.
... I would create a table
Employees2(with one field?) with a 1:1
relationship to Employees and
relationships to this new table from
any remaining relations in which
EmployeeID is a foreign key.
That is workable. Presumably your main table might have an Autonumber field as the primary key, or you generate an index number. Your Employees2 table obviously must echo that.
What's the best way to ensure the
second table is populated alongside
the first?
That depends somewhat on how you are adding records. But in general, of course you must comply with the rules for integrity. This usually comes down to appending to tables in the correct order and ensuring each record is saved before trying to add a related record elsewhere.
Related
A database was created with 5 tables. These tables were populated with data upon creation - perhaps it was imported from a previous database.
When the DB was created, primary keys were created for each table, however foreign keys were not.
How do I run a query to identify which tables columns contain data that relates to the PK in other tables? Effectively, how do I identify the FK column(s) on each table? Some tables may contain 2 FK's.
The end goal is to identify the FK('s) in each table and properly set up the table with appropriate FK structure and table relations.
Don't try to use queries to automate this database design / reverse-engineering process. (If you had 500 tables, maybe. But you only have five.)
Eyeball your table definitions. If you have, for example, an id primary key column in your user table, your contact table might have a user_id column. That is the FK to user.id. It will help you greatly if you really understand how your tables tie together with FKs.
And, keep in mind that your system will still work tolerably well if you don't bother to actually declare these foreign keys. What you'll lose:
constraints, in which the database engine prevents, for example a contact.user_id column value that doesn't point to any user.id row.
possibly some helpful indexing.
MySql Workbench has a reverse engineering feature. It inspects the definition of a database and does its best to sort out various entities (tables) and the relationships (foreign key dependencies) between them. It presents graphical e:r diagrams and can generate DDL. That can help you understand a database and set up appropriate FKs. But still, check the relationships it suggests: this data is yours, not Workbench's.
I am a total novice to this whole database world and I have a question. I am building a database for my final project for my masters class. The database includes cities, counties, and demographic data for the state of Colorado. The database ultimately will be used as a spatial database. At this point I have all my tables built in Access, and have a ODBC connection to PostgreSQL to import the tables after they are created. Access does not allow for shapefiles to be added to the database, PostgreSQL does.
My question is about primary keys, each of my tables in Access share an FIPS code (this code allows me to join the demographic data to a shapefile and display the data in ArcMap with the proper coordinates). I have a many demographic data tables with this FIPS code. Is it acceptable to set the FIPS as the primary key for each table? Or does each table need its own individual primary key that is different from the others?
Thanks for the help!
The default PK is “ID”, so there really no problem with using this default for all tables.
In fact it means for any table or code you write you can now always rest easy as to what the primary key is going to be.
And if you copy or re-name a table, then again you know the ID.
Some people do prefer having the table name as part of the PK, but that does violate normalizing of data since now your attaching an external attribute to that PK column.
However for a FK (foreign key), since the VERY definition of the column is an external dependency, then I tend to include the table name like this:
Customers_ID
And once again due to this naming convention, then you can always “guess” or “know” the name of a FK column (table name + ID).
At the end of the day, there is not really a convention on this issue. However I will recommend for all tables you create, you do allow access to create that default PK of “id”. This of course assumes your database design is not using natural keys. And the debate of natural keys vs surrogate key (an auto number pk “id”) has many pros and cons. You can google natural keys vs surrogate keys for endless discussions on this issue.
We are currently in the process of developing our own e-commerce solution, as part of our research we have been examining the ZenCart Database Schema and found that data is quite frequently duplicated between various tables where it would seem that perhaps a Foreign Key would have been sufficient to link the two or more tables in question, for example:
Given that there is table "Products" that has the following columns
PRODUCT_IDPRODUCT_NAMEPRODUCT_PRICEPRODUCT_SKU
Then if there is a Sales_Item "Table" Then of course a product (and all its constituent columns)may be referenced by simply doing something like:
SALES_ITEM_IDProducts_PRODUCT_ID //This is the foreign key that relates a specific product to a sale item.SALE_TIMEREST_OF_SALE_SPECIFIC_DATA......
However instead it seems that the Sales table COPIES many of the field values defined in the Products table so it infact looks as follows:
SALES_ITEM_IDPRODUCT_IDPRODUCT_NAMEPRODUCT_PRICEPRODUCT_SKUSALE_TIME
My question is which approach would generally be considered best practice when attempting to build a scalable efficient solution. Using foreign keys means data is not duplicated but the caveat is that database or application-level JOINS would be needed in order to query the entire dataset. However than being said, for some reason the foreign key approach seems cleaner and more correct somehow.
This is probably a very stupid question, but I am just not sure which solution is the most elegant and the best(most performant) way to go in the following scenario.
I have the following tables:
Customer, Company, Meter, Reading
all of the tables above the line are supposed to be linked to one or more records of a "Comment" table. Which is the best way to model this relationship?
I am seeing two solutions here:
1.) use m:n relationships: CustomerComment, CompanyComment, etc. -> easy to extend later on, but a lot of new tables
2.) use 1:n relationships: Comment table has a field for the PK of the tables above (Customer_id, Company_id, ...) -> minimal table approach, but "harder" to extend since I would have to add a new field to the comment table whenever there is a new table that needs to be have comments
The target is a modular application, which may or may not have any of those four tables.
Which one is the better one - or are there more?
Thanks!
This is the problem with using integers for primary keys. You have a few solutions you can use.
The true unique ID for any given row for Customer, Company, Meter, Reading is a UUID. Maybe because of the database design the primary key has to be an integer but that is ok. This means you never have to add fields to the COMMENTS table if you have a new type in your system. It will always reference by the types ID.
Your tables can look like this:
CUSTOMER
ID UUID
COMPANY
ID UUID
METER
ID UUID
COMMENTS
ID
RELATED_TO UUID
COMMENT TEXT
Now you can attach comments to any table that has a unique ID.
If you want to support referential constraints
OBJECT is a table that holds all of the ID's of all the pieces of data you have in your system. We really start building a system in which you can associate any comment with anything you want. This may not be suitable in your design.
OBJECT
ID UUID
CUSTOMER
ID UUID
FOREIGN_KEY (ID) REFERENCES OBJECT(ID) ON DELETE CASCADE
COMPANY
ID UUID
FOREIGN_KEY (ID) REFERENCES OBJECT(ID) ON DELETE CASCADE
METER
ID UUID
FOREIGN_KEY (ID) REFERENCES OBJECT(ID) ON DELETE CASCADE
COMMENTS
ID
RELATED_TO UUID
COMMENT TEXT
FOREIGN_KEY (RELATED_TO) REFERENCES OBJECT(ID) ON DELETE CASCADE
This complicates the design in order to assure you don't need to add 2 tables for each new type in the system. Each design has sacrifices. In this one you've complicated things by saying for every each entry whether it be Company, Customer, Meter I need an associated ID int he Object table so I can put a foreign key on it.
I prefer one for each pair - CustomerComment, CompanyComment, etc. It eventually will speed up your queries, and while it isn't as 'extensible' as a single CommentLink table, you'll need to make schema changes when you add something else that needs comments anyway.
I would use seperate tables, that way you can keep the referential constraints simple.
Can someone give a demo?
I'm using MySQL,but the idea should be the same!
EDIT
In fact I'm asking what's the difference between Doctrine_Relation and Doctrine_Relation_ForeignKey in doctrine?
I suspect what you are looking at would be to be map columns from one db table to another db table. You can do this using some string comparison algorithm. An algo like Levenstein or Jaro-Winkler distance would let you infer the "matching" columns.
For example, if db1.tableA has a column L_Name and db2.tableB has a column LastName, a string distance match would fetch you one measure. You can extend that by comparing the values in the rows to check if there is some consistency for example if the values in both tables contains: "Smith"s, "Johnson"s etc. you have a double-win.
I recently did something similar, integrating multiple large databases (one of them in a different language - French!) and it turned out to be quite a great experience.
HTH
You should use foreign keys to relate tables in MySQL, because it does not offer other ways to create relationships (such as references or nested tables in an object-oriented database).
See:
http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/206589
EDIT:
If you are willing to use Oracle, references and nested-tables are alternate ways to create relationships between tables. References are more versatile, so here is an example.
Since references are used in object-oriented fashion, you should first create a type and a table to hold objects of that type.
Lets create an object type of employee which has a reference to his manager:
CREATE TYPE employee_type AS OBJECT (
name VARCHAR2(30),
manager REF manager_type
);
We should also create an object type for managers:
CREATE TYPE manager_type AS OBJECT (
name VARCHAR2(30),
);
Now lets create two tables, one for employees and other for managers:
CREATE TABLE employees OF employee_type;
CREATE TABLE managers OF manager_type;
We can relate this tables using references. To insert an employee in employees table, just do this:
INSERT INTO employees
SELECT employee_type('Bob Jones', REF(m))
FROM managers m
WHERE m.name = 'Larry Ellison';
More info: Introduction to Oracle Objects
Well you could get around that by taking care of relationships in a server side language. Some database abstraction layers can handle this for you (such as Zend_Db_Table for PHP) but it is recommended to use foreign keys.
MySQL has InnoDB storage engine that supports foreign keys and also transactions.
Using a foreign key is the standard way of creating a relationship. Alternatives are pretty much nonexistent, as you'd have to identify the related rows SOMEHOW.
A column (or set of columns) which links the two tables IS a foreign key - even if it doesn't have a constraint defined on it (or even an index) and isn't either of the tables' primary key (although in that case you can end up with a weird situation where you can get unintended cartesian products when joining, as you will end up with a set vs set relationship which is probably not what you want)
Not having a foreign key constraint is no barrier to using a foreign key.