I'm using Sails.js to build an API for an existing database. Unfortunately, modifying the structure of the database is not an option.
Many tables in the database have status columns of one type or another. They tend to have single-letter values that don't make sense without context. Context is provided by a "lookup" table in the database with 3 primary keys: table_name, column_name, and column_contents. Therefore, if I have a letter returned as a status, I can do a query against the lookup table and check a fourth column, description.
I'd love to configure my Sails.js models to understand all this, but it seems that one-to-many relationships can only be set up for tables with a single primary key. Is that correct?
Based on the "many-to-many" workaround, I assume the sails way to solve this would be to create new tables that are subsets of the "lookup" table (each for a single instance of table_name, column_name). Is there a better way?
Related
I have read-only access to a database. This database has multiple tables with status codes and one other reference table the gives a name for each code. These tables are not linked by a foreign key and I can't alter the database in any way. I'd like to display the status names in my web-app view instead of the numeric status code, is there a way to do this? Using EF Core 6
I tried to join the two tables but it didn't match the model in the View. I don't know how to remedy this situation without creating a new table (which I can't do)
I have a DynamoDB table with hundreds of thousands of data, which I need it duplicated, with one catch that the key needs to be modified. The current key is a combination of 2 fields, e.g. attr1:attr2. I need the new table to have the key consisted only from attr1.
I know copying the table with Data pipelines is pretty straight forward, but how do I do the new key creation according to the use case I have?
Note: the data size is between 500K and 1M items.
Use Elastic Map Reduce in order to manipulate the data. This article explains how to handle DynamoDB data with EMR. Create a UDF which will parse and manipulate the key and use that in a comprehensive
SELECT UDF(id), all, other, columns FROM your_table
Which will be saved in another DynamoDB table.
Ok, I have a table with primary partition key (Employee ID) and Sort Key (Poject ID). Now I want a list of all projects an employee works on. Also I want list of all employees working on a project. The relationship is many to many. I have created schema in AppSync (GraphQL). Appsync created the required queries and mutations for the type (EmployeeProjects). Now the ListEmployeeProjects takes a filter input with different attributes. My question is when I do the two searches on Employee ID or Project ID only, will it be a complete table scan? How efficient will that be. If it is a table scan, can I reduce the time complexity by creating indexes (GSI or LSI). The end product will have huge amount of data, so I cannot test the app with such data before hand. My project works fine, but I am worried about the problems that might arise later on with a lot of data. Can someone please help.
You don't need to (and should not) perform a Scan for this.
To get all of the projects an employee is working on, you just need to perform a Query on the base table, specifying employee ID as the partition key.
To get all of the employees on a project, you should create a GSI on the table. The partition key should be project ID and sort key should be employee ID. Then perform a Query on the GSI, using partition key of project ID.
In order to model this correctly you will probably want three tables
Employee Table
Project Table
Employee-Project reference table (i.e. just two attributes of employee ID and project ID)
I am facing a big problem with simple linq query.. I am using EF 4.0..
I am trying to take all the records from a table using a linq query:
var result = context.tablename.select(x=>x);
This results in less rows than the normal sql query which is select * from tablename;
This table has more than 5 tables as child objects (foreign key relations: one to one and one to many etc)..
This result variable after executing that linq statement returns records with all child object values without doing a include statement..
I don't know is it a default behavior of EF 4.0 ..
I tried this statement in linqpad also..but there is no use...
But interesting thing is if I do a join on the same table with another one table is working same is sql inner join and count is same..but I don't know why is it acting differently with that table only..
Is it doing inner joins with all child tables before returning the all records of that parent table??
please help me..
This table has more than 5 tables as
child objects (foreign key relations:
one to one and one to many etc)..
This result variable after executing
that linq statement returns records
with all child object values without
doing a include statement..
So we are probably talking about database view or custom DefiningQuery in SSDL.
I described the same behavior here. Your entity based on joined tables probably doesn't have unique identification for each retruned row so your problem is Identity map. You must manually configure entity key of your entity. It should be composite key based on all primary keys from joined tables. Entity key is used to identify entity in indenty map. If you don't have unique key for each record only first record with the new key is used. If you didn't specify the key manually EF had infered its own.
The easiest way to troubleshoot these types of issues is to look at the generated SQL produced by the ORM tool.
If you are using SQL Server then using the SQL Profiler to view the generated SQL.
From what you are describing, a possible explanation might be that your relationships between entities are mandatory and thereby enforcing INNER joins instead of LEFT OUTER joins.
i have two tables
asset employee
assetid-pk empid-pk
empid-fk
now, i have a form to populate the asset table but it cant because of the foreign key constraint..
what to do?
thx
Tk
Foreign keys are created for a good reason - to prevent orphan rows at a minimum. Create the corresponding parent and then use the appropriate value as the foreign key value on the child table.
You should think about this update as a series of SQL statements, not just one statement. You'll process the statements in order of dependency, see example.
Asset
PK AssetID
AssetName
FK EmployeeID
etc...
Employee
PK EmployeeID
EmployeeName
etc...
If you want to "add" a new asset, you'll first need to know which employee it will be assigned to. If it will be assigned to a new employee, you'll need to add them first.
Here is an example of adding a asset named 'BOOK' for a new employee named 'Zach'.
DECLARE #EmployeeFK AS INT;
INSERT (EmployeeName) VALUES ('Zach') INTO EMPLOYEE;
SELECT #EmployeeFK = ##IDENTITY;
INSERT (AssetName, EmployeeID) VALUES ('BOOK',#EmployeeFK) INTO ASSET;
The important thing to notice above, is that we grab the new identity (aka: EmployeeID) assigned to 'Zach', so we can use it when we add the new asset.
If I understand you correctly, are you trying to build the data graph locally before persisting to the data? That is, create the parent and child records within the application and persist it all at once?
There are a couple approaches to this. One approach people take is to use GUIDs as the unique identifiers for the data. That way you don't need to get the next ID from the database, you can just create the graph locally and persist the whole thing. There's been a debate on this approach between software and database for a long time, because while it makes a lot of sense in many ways (hit the database less often, maintain relationships before persisting, uniquely identify data across systems) it turns out to be a significant resource hit on the database.
Another approach is to use an ORM that will handle the persistence mapping for you. Something like NHibernate, for example. You would create your parent object and the child objects would just be properties on that. They wouldn't have any concept of foreign keys and IDs and such, they'd just be objects in code related by being set as properties on each other (such as a "blog post" object with a generic collection of "comment" objects, etc.). This graph would be handed off to the ORM which would use its knowledge of the mapping between the objects and the persistence to send it off to the database in the correct order, perhaps giving back the same object but with ID numbers populated.
Or is this not what you're asking? It's a little unclear, to be honest.