the problem is that i have made three tables and first two table's primary keys are declared as foreign keys in the third table. now i want to store data in the third table but the problem is that no ids are being passsed to the foreign Key values thats why i am getting errors
as you can see i have shown to drop down lists, one for student and second for courses but when i try to register the record it is not getting ids of primary keys which are declared as foreign keys in the new table
Related
I get the following error when I try to add a foreign key to my purchaseorderheader table :
ORA-02270: "no matching unique or primary key for this column-list"
I made sure the table and column names are the same but I still get the error, any ideas?
You have a composite primary key that is composed of two columns but, in your foreign key, you are only referencing one of the columns of the composite primary key and not the entire primary key.
You either need to:
change the primary key to be only on the single column purchaseorderid;
keep the existing primary key and additionally create a UNIQUE key on only the purchaseorderid column of the first table; or
include both columns of the primary key in the foreign key.
Whichever option you choose, you should make sure that it implements the business logic that you are trying to capture in the table; if it does not then you should revisit the database-design and find a design that does capture your business logic.
There is a name field in the UI which is also the primary key column in the underlying table. There is a requirement to make that field editable in the UI. There should be an ID which should serve as the primary key, but there isn't and now it is not feasible to introduce any ID column.
Is there any alternate design idea which can be used in such a scenario ?
The UI is in Swing and DB is Oracle.
First of all, I don't know, who thinks Name field can be Primary Key. That's the wrong database design ever.
Yes, you better change it to some ID column as Primary Key and that shouldn't be updated in future. Since, you can't have multiple Primary Key. So, you need to perform some circus here.
You need to drop existing Primary Key first. Since, you can't have multiple Primary Key in single table.
Create your ID column and allow NULL
Then, update this column with sequence.
Once your ID column gets populated, you need to create Primary Key on this column.
You can only have one primary key, but you can have any number of unique indexes on a table. So let the existing primary key be the immutable primary key and have the application use this key internally for everything. Add another column to the table and create a unique index on it. Let the users modify this other field.
Another alternative would be to declare all child tables with foreign keys ON UPDATE CASCADE. That way, any update to the primary key will cascade to the child tables. Once implemented in production, quit the company and run fast in the other direction and write an article about how you were the first person ever to use ON UPDATE CASCADE in a production setting.
I have a table cars with attributes: id, name. I also have another table specs with id, car_id, name. This tables are related with one to many relations from the Models. I also have set up the foreign keys in.
I have a controller manageData where i have a function insertCar which i use to insert data and update both tables. I wan to create another function deleteCar from where i can delete the car along with its specs from the other table
Use onDelete() method in migration when defining foreign key:
$table->foreign('car_id')->references('id')->on('cars')->onDelete('cascade');
In this case when you'll delete a car record, related data will be automatically deleted from another table.
https://laravel.com/docs/5.4/migrations#foreign-key-constraints
i have table. which has 5 columns in that 3 of the columns makes primary key combinations.
table (cola, colb, colc, cold, cole)
i want to update one of the column which is in primary key group. how to do that?
its giving primary key constraint error.
You should disable do your modification an re enable the constraints that are linked to your primary key. (Unique, non-null, etc...)
Take a look at this website
If you really need to maintain uniqueness over these three columns, then define a unique constraint on the three columns making up your current PK, and then define a new surrogate primary key column.
Just in case you have to change the referncing data too.
First note contrary to MS-SQL-Server there is no foreign Key contraint with on update cascade see How to create a Foreign Key with “ON UPDATE CASCADE” on Oracle?.
Than I would insert a new row in the primary table, update the referencing table to reference the new row and finally delete the original primary row.
I have 2 tables in my database that I'm trying to create Linq2Sql entities for. There's more to them than this, but this is essentially what they come down to:
Rooms UserActivity
-------- --------
RoomID ActivityID
RoomID (foreign key on Rooms.RoomID)
The UserActivity table is essentially just a log for actions a user performs against the Rooms table.
Since the UserActivity table is only used for logging actions taken, it didn't make a lot of sense (to me at least) to create a primary key for the table originally, until the Linq2Sql mapper refused to make UserActivity a part of the Room entity in my Linq entities. When I set up the entities in the Visual Studio designer, I got these 2 warnings:
Warning 1 DBML1062: The Type attribute 'UserActivity' of the Association element 'Room_UserActivity' of the Type element 'Room' does not have a primary key. No code will be generated for the association.
Warning 2 DBML1011: The Type element 'UserActivity' contains the Association element 'Room_UserActivity' but does not have a primary key. No code will be generated for the association.
These warnings led me to create the ActivityID column in my table as displayed above.
What I'd like to know is if there is any way to allow Linq2Sql to create relationships between my entities without having a primary key in both tables. If I don't have the primary key in the UserActivity table, the entities can still be created, but the relationships aren't generated.
Is is it possible to do this, or should I try to make sure my tables always have a primary key in them as a general good practice?
Any table that stores real data in your app should always have a primary key - most cases, in SQL Server environments, a INT IDENTITY(1,1) will be just fine. You don't have to keep track of those, no bookkeeping necessary etc. It doesn't cost you much, totally easy to do - I don't see any reason why not have a primary key, even on your UserActivity table.
ALTER TABLE UserActivity
ADD UserActivityID INT IDENTITY(1,1)
CONSTRAINT PK_UserActivity PRIMARY KEY
and you're done!
The only time I would say no primary key is needed is for things like temporary tables when bulk importing huge amounts of data, or other temporary scenarios.
Marc
You need a primary key to create relationships.
It's good practise to always design tables with primary keys, even if you add surrogate (auto increment identity).