I asked this question previously but the answers weren't what I was looking for.
I created a table in Asp.net without using code. It contains two columns.
YourUserId and FriendUserId
This is a many to many relationship.
Heres what I want:
There can be multiple records with your name as the UserId, there can also be multiple records with FriendUserId being the same...but there cannot be multiple records with both being the same. For example:
Dave : Greg
Dave : Chris
Greg : Chris
Chris : Greg
is good
Dave : Greg
Dave : Greg
is not good.
I right clicked on the table and chose Indexes/Keys. I then put both columns in the columns section and chose to make the unique. I thought this would make them unique as a whole but individually not unique.
If you go to the Dataset, it show keys next to both columns and says that there is a constraint with both columns being checked.
Is there a way of just making sure that you are not inserting a duplicate copy of a record into the table without individual columns being unique?
I tried controling it with my sql insert statement but that did not work. This is what I tried.
INSERT INTO [FriendRequests] ([UserId], [FriendUserId]) VALUES ('"+UserId+"', '"+PossibleFriend+"') WHERE NOT EXIST (SELECT [UserId], [FriendUserId] FROM [FriendRequests])
That didn't work for some reason.
Thank you for your help!
You should create a compound primary key to prevent duplicate rows.
ALTER TABLE FriendRequests
ADD CONSTRAINT pk_FriendRequests PRIMARY KEY (UserID, FriendUserID)
Or select both columns in table designer and right click to set it as a key.
To prevent self-friendship, you'd create a CHECK constraint:
ALTER TABLE FriendRequests
ADD CONSTRAINT ck_FriendRequests_NoSelfFriends CHECK (UserID <> FriendUserID)
You can add the check constraint in the designer by right clicking anywhere in the table designer, clicking "Check constraints", clicking "add", and setting expression to UserID <> FriendUserID
You might want to look at this question
Sounds like you need a composite key to make both fields a single key.
I have a better idea. Create a new table. Called FriendRequestRelationships. Have the following columns
FriendRelationshipId (PRIMARY KEY)
UserId_1 (FOREIGN KEY CONSTRAINT)
UserId_2 (FOREIGN KEY CONSTRAINT)
Put a unique constraint to only allow one relationship wit UserId_1 and UserId_2. This table now serves as your many-to-many relationship harness.
Create a scalar function that can return the FriendUserId for a UserId, lets say it's called fn_GetFriendUserIdForUserId
You can now display your relationships by running the following query
SELECT dbo.fn_GetFriendUserIdForUserId(UserId_1) AS 'Friend1',
dbo.fn_GetFriendUserIdForUserId(UserId_2) AS 'Friend2',
FROM FriendRelationshipId
Related
Similar to this question and this solution for PostgreSQL (in particular "INSERT missing FK rows at the same time"):
Suppose I am making an address book with a "Groups" table and a "Contact" table. When I create a new Contact, I may want to place them into a Group at the same time. So I could do:
INSERT INTO Contact VALUES (
"Bob",
(SELECT group_id FROM Groups WHERE name = "Friends")
)
But what if the "Friends" Group doesn't exist yet? Can we insert this new Group efficiently?
The obvious thing is to do a SELECT to test if the Group exists already; if not do an INSERT. Then do an INSERT into Contacts with the sub-SELECT above.
Or I can constrain Group.name to be UNIQUE, do an INSERT OR IGNORE, then INSERT into Contacts with the sub-SELECT.
I can also keep my own cache of which Groups exist, but that seems like I'm duplicating functionality of the database in the first place.
My guess is that there is no way to do this in one query, since INSERT does not return anything and cannot be used in a subquery. Is that intuition correct? What is the best practice here?
My guess is that there is no way to do this in one query, since INSERT
does not return anything and cannot be used in a subquery. Is that
intuition correct?
You could use a Trigger and a little modification of the tables and then you could do it with a single query.
For example consider the folowing
Purely for convenience of producing the demo:-
DROP TRIGGER IF EXISTS add_group_if_not_exists;
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS contact;
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS groups;
One-time setup SQL :-
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS groups (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, group_name TEXT UNIQUE);
INSERT INTO groups VALUES(-1,'NOTASSIGNED');
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS contact (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, contact TEXT, group_to_use TEXT, group_reference TEXT DEFAULT -1 REFERENCES groups(id));
CREATE TRIGGER IF NOT EXISTS add_group_if_not_exists
AFTER INSERT ON contact
BEGIN
INSERT OR IGNORE INTO groups (group_name) VALUES(new.group_to_use);
UPDATE contact SET group_reference = (SELECT id FROM groups WHERE group_name = new.group_to_use), group_to_use = NULL WHERE id = new.id;
END;
SQL that would be used on an ongoing basis :-
INSERT INTO contact (contact,group_to_use) VALUES
('Fred','Friends'),
('Mary','Family'),
('Ivan','Enemies'),
('Sue','Work colleagues'),
('Arthur','Fellow Rulers'),
('Amy','Work colleagues'),
('Henry','Fellow Rulers'),
('Canute','Fellow Ruler')
;
The number of values and the actual values would vary.
SQL Just for demonstration of the result
SELECT * FROM groups;
SELECT contact,group_name FROM contact JOIN groups ON group_reference = groups.id;
Results
This results in :-
1) The groups (noting that the group "NOTASSIGNED", is intrinsic to the working of the above and hence added initially) :-
have to be careful regard mistakes like (Fellow Ruler instead of Fellow Rulers)
-1 used because it would not be a normal value automatically generated.
2) The contacts with the respective group :-
Efficient insertion
That could likely be debated from here to eternity so I leave it for the fence sitters/destroyers to decide :). However, some considerations:-
It works and appears to do what is wanted.
It's a little wasteful due to the additional wasted column.
It tries to minimise the waste by changing the column to an empty string (NULL may be even more efficient, but for some can be confusing)
There will obviously be an overhead BUT in comparison to the alternatives probably negligible (perhaps important if you were extracting every Facebook user) but if it's user input driven likely irrelevant.
What is the best practice here?
Fences again. :)
Note Hopefully obvious, but the DROP statements are purely for convenience and that all other SQL up until the INSERT is run once
to setup the tables and triggers in preparation for the single INSERT
that adds a group if necessary.
So I created a recipe database, and just now I've noticed I forgot to add an ingredient to the second recipe. The order of ingredients is obviously important here, so even if I add it now to the end of the table, it will still be the last when I SELECT the second recipe, when it should be the second ingredient.
Is there any way I can insert it in a specific position, or am I doomed and will have to create an index column specifying the order of the ingredients?
NOTE: This is a junction table, so there's no primary key here, thus I can't insert it using a specific primary key value.
EDIT: Basically I have three tables: Recipe, Ingredient, and RecipeIngredient many-to-many junction table.
Here's the RecipeIngredient junction table structure:
RecipeId: FK
IngredientId: FK
Quantity: REAL
UOM: TEXT
Notes: TEXT
The rules of the First normal form (1NF) are strict on this:
There's no top-to-bottom ordering to the rows.
Meaning there is no way, in a proper database schema, that a record can be "missing at a certain position".
You are indeed "doomed" and
will have to create an index column specifying the order of the ingredients
can you show the table structure?
It is difficult to insert a row in specific position without primary key.
I am developing an application which tracks class attendance of students in a school, in Apex.
I want to create a page with three level cascading select lists, so the teacher can first select the Semester, then the Subject and then the specific Class of that Subject, so the application returns the Students who are enrolled in that Class.
My problem is that these three tables have a many-to-many relationship between them, so I use extra tables with their keys.
Every Semester has many Subjects and a Subject can be taught in many Semesters.
Every Subject has many classes in every Semester.
The students must enroll in a subject every semester and then the teacher can assign them to a class.
The tables look something like this:
create table semester(
id number not null,
name varchar2(20) not null,
primary key(id)
);
create table subject(
id number not null,
subject_name varchar2(50) not null,
primary key(id)
);
create table student(
id number not null,
name varchar2(20),
primary key(id)
);
create table semester_subject(
id number not null,
semester_id number not null,
subject_id number not null,
primary key(id),
foreign key(semester_id) references semester(id),
foreign key(subject_id) references subject(id),
constraint unique sem_sub_uq unique(semester_id, subject_id)
);
create table class(
id number not null,
name number not null,
semester_subject_id number not null,
primary key(id),
foreign key(semester_subject_id) references semester_subject(id)
);
create table class_enrollment(
id number not null,
student_id number not null,
semester_subject_id number not null,
class_id number,
primary_key(id),
foreign key(student_id) references student(id),
foreign key(semester_subject_id) references semester_subject(id),
foreign key(class_id) references class(id)
);
The list of value for the Semester select list looks like this:
select name, id
from semester
order by 1;
The the subject select list should include the names of all the Subjects available in the semester selected above, but I can't figure the query or even if it's possible. What I have right now:
select s.name, s.id
from subject s, semester_subject ss
where ss.semester_id = :PX_SEMESTER //value from above select list
and ss.subject_id = s.id;
But you can't have two tables in a LoV and the query is probably wrong anyway...
I didn't even begin to think about what the query for the class would look like.
I appreciate any help or if you can point me in the right direction so I can figure it out myself.
Developing an Apex Input Form Using Item-Parametrized Lists of Values (LOVs)
Your initial schema design looks good. One recommendation once you've developed and tested your solution on a smaller scale, append to the ID (primary key) columns a trigger that can auto-populate its values through a sequence. You could also skip the trigger and just reference the sequence in your sql insert DML commands. It just makes things simpler. Creating tables in the APEX environment with their built-in wizards offer the opportunity to make an "auto-incrementing" key column.
There is also an additional column added to the SEMESTER table called SORT_KEY. This helps when you are storing string typed values which have logical sorting sequences that aren't exactly alphanumeric in nature.
Setting Up The Test Data Values
Here is the test data I generated to demonstrate the cascading list of values design that will work with the example.
Making Dynamic List of Value Queries
The next step is to make the first three inter-dependent List of Values definitions. As you have discovered, you can reference page parameters in your LOVs which may come from a variety of sources. In this case, the choice selection from our LOVs will be assigned to Apex Page Items.
I also thought only one table could be referenced in a single LOV query. This is incorrect. The page documentation suggests that it is the SQL query syntax that is the limiting factor. The following LOV queries reference more than one table, and they work:
-- SEMESTER LOV Query
-- name: CHOOSE_SEMESTER
select a.name d, a.id r
from semester a
where a.id in (
select b.semester_id
from semester_subject b
where b.subject_id = nvl(:P5_SUBJECT, b.subject_id))
order by a.sort_id
-- SUBJECT LOV Query
-- name: CHOOSE_SUBJECT
select a.subject_name d, a.id r
from subject a
where a.id in (
select b.subject_id
from semester_subject b
where b.semester_id = nvl(:P5_SEMESTER, b.semester_id))
order by 1
-- CLASS LOV Query
-- name: CHOOSE_CLASS
select a.name d, a.id r
from class a, semester_subject b
where a.semester_subject_id = b.id
and b.subject_id = :P5_SUBJECT
and b.semester_id = :P5_SEMESTER
order by 1
Some design notes to consider:
Don't mind the P5_ITEM notation. The page in my sample app happened to be on "page 5" and so the convention goes.
I chose to assign a name for each LOV query as a hint. Don't just embed the query in an item. Add some breathing room for yourself as a developer by making the LOV a portable object that can be referenced elsewhere if needed.
MAKE a named LOV for each query through the SHARED OBJECTS menu option of your application designer.
The extra operator involving the NVL command, as in nvl(:P5_SUBJECT, b.subject_id) for the CHOOSE_SEMESTER LOV is an expression mirrored on the CHOOSE_SUBJECT query as well. If the default value of P5_SUBJECT and P5_SEMESTER are null when entering the page, how does that assist with the handling of the cascading relationships?
The table SEMESTER_SUBJECT represents a key relationship. Why is a LOV for this table not needed?
APEX Application Form Design Using Cascading LOVs
Setting up the a page for testing the schema design and LOV queries requires the creation of three page items:
Each page item should be defined as a SELECT LIST leave all the defaults initially until you understand how the basic design works. Each select list item should be associated with their corresponding LOV, such as:
The key design twist is the Select List made for the CHOOSE_CLASS LOV, which represents a cascading dependency on more than one data source.
We will use the "Cascading Parent" option so that this item will wait until both CHOOSE_SEMESTER and CHOOSE_SUBJECT are selected. It will also refresh if either of the two are changed.
YES! The cascading parent item can consist of multiple page items/elements. They just have to be declared in a comma separated list.
From the online help info, this is a general introduction to how cascading LOVs can be used in APEX designs:
From Oracle Apex Help Docs: A cascading LOV means that the current item's list of values should be refreshed if the value of another item on this page gets changed.
Specify a comma separated list of page items to be used to trigger the refresh. You can then use those page items in the where clause of your "List of Values" SQL statement.
Demonstration of APEX Application Items with Cascading LOVs
These examples are based on the sample data given at the beginning of this solution. The path of the chosen example case is:
SEMESTER: SPRING 2014 + SUBJECT: PHYS ED + Verify Valid Course Options:
Fitness for Life
General Flexibility
Presidential Fitness Challenge
Running for Fun
Volleyball Basics
The choice from above will be assigned to page item P5_CLASS.
Selection Choices for P5_SEMESTER:
Selection Choices for P5_SUBJECT:
Selection Choices for P5_CLASS:
Closing Remarks and Discussion
Some closing thoughts that occurred to me while working with this design project:
About the Primary Keys: The notion of a generic, ID named column for a primary key was a good design choice. While APEX can handle composite business keys, it gets clumsy and difficult to work around.
One thing that made the schema design challenging to work with was that the notion of "id" transformed in the other tables that referenced it. (Such as the ID column in the SEMESTER table became SEMESTER_ID in the SEMESTER_SUBJECT table. Just keep an eye on these name changes with larger queries. At times I actually lost track exactly what ID I was working with.
A Word for Sanity: In the likely event you decide to assign ID values through a database sequence object, the default is usually to begin at one. If you have several different tables in your schema with the same column name: ID and some associating tables such as CLASS_ENROLLMENT which connects the values of one primary key ID and three additional foreign key ID's, it may get difficult to discern where the data values are coming from.
Consider offsetting your sequences or arbitrarily choosing different increments and starting values. If you're mainly pushing ID's around in your queries, if two different ID sets are separated by two or three orders of magnitude, it will be easy to know if you've pulled the right data values.
Are There MORE Cascading Relationships? If a "parent" item relationship indicates a dependency that makes a page item LOV wait or change depending on the value of another, could there be another cascading relationship to define? In the case of CHOOSE_SEMESTER and CHOOSE_SUBJECT is it possible? Is it necessary?
I was able to figure out how to make these two items hold an optional cascading dependency, but it required setting up another outside page item reference. (If it isn't optional, you get stuck in a closed loop as soon as one of the two values changes.) Fancy, but not really necessary to solve the problem at hand.
What's Left to Do? I left out some additional tasks for you to continue with, such as managing the DML into the ENROLLMENT table after selecting a valid STUDENT.
Overall, you've got a workable schema design. There is a way to represent the data relationships through an APEX application design pattern. Happy coding, it looks like a challenging project!
I have tbl_names with following fields:
Id int
Name nvarchar(10)
family nvarchar(20)
Id Name Family
1 John Smith
and suppose Id and name are primary key together(compound primary key).
and I want to update name field according to the value of Id field.
DataclassesContext dac=new DataClassesContext();
var query=from record in Dac.tbl_name where record.id=1 select record;
query.name="Raymond";
Dac.Submitchanges();
but I encounter following error:
Value of member 'co_Workshop' of an object of type 'Tbl_Workshop' changed.
A member defining the identity of the object cannot be changed.
Consider adding a new object with new identity and deleting the existing one instead.
Is it because of name field is primary key? why can't I update a primary key field using linq?
I am not sure that you should find a way around this. I cannot imagine why it would be a good idea to change a value in a PK. The entire nature of a PK is that it is a stable identifier of the row.
In your case, you should drop and recreate the PK to be just the "Id" field and then if you need to improve performance on queries filtering on "name" then just add an Index on the "name" field. The fact that you only use the "Id" field to find the record supports this idea.
EDIT:
I answered before there were comments to the Question. Now that I see the comment from the OP about "it is an old database and can't change it's structure", I would say that if there are no FKs pointing to this PK then this should be a fairly straight-forward change (to drop and recreate the PK with just the "Id" field as I mentioned above). If there are FKs pointing to it then an option (though not a great option and it might not work on all RDBMS's) is to:
Drop the FKs
Drop the PK
Create the new PK on just the "Id" field
Create a UNIQUE INDEX on "Id" and "Name"
Recreate the FK's to point to the UNIQUE INDEX
This will work on Microsoft SQL Server and as much as I dislike the idea of a FK pointing to a UNIQUE INDEX, it should allow for the same structure that you have now plus LINQ will just see the single field PK on "Id" and allow for the update.
Where possible, a workaround is to delete the record whose primary key value needs updating and create a new record in its place.
It looks like there are ways around it, like I mentioned above. Linq won't let you change the primary key.
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/linqprojectgeneral/thread/64064c2d-1484-4a00-a2c4-764bcb6b774a
Had the same problem. For legacy reasons, I couldn't remove the column I needed to update from being part of the primary key.
A simple solution was to not use Linq in this case, but use T_SQL and do a simple update.
update tbl_name set name = 'Raymond' where id = 1
I am using Visual Web Developer and Microsoft SQL server. I have a tag table "Entry_Tag" which is as follows:
entry_id
tag_id
I want to make the entry_id and tag_id pairing unique. A particular tag can only be applied to an entry once in the table. I made the two columns a primary key. They are also both foreign keys referencing the ids in their respective tables. When I dragged the tables into the Object Relationship Designer it only showed a relationship line between either "Entry_Tag" and "Entry" or when I tried again between "Entry_tag" and "Tag".
The "Entry_tag" table should have a relationship with both "Tag" and "Entry".
How do I go about doing this?
In general, you can add a unique constraint on the table that includes both columns. In this case, including both of the columns in the primary key should have already done this. If you have relationships set up for each field to other tables, then I believe those relationships should be displayed in the query designer... I see no cause for this given the information you've provided - perhaps you need to post more information.
Create an UNIQUE INDEX to for entry_id and tag_id.
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX index_name ON table (entry_id, tag_id)