can anyone explain to me why the execution of "DISABLE PRIMARY KEY CASCADE" on a PK doesn't set the corresponding unique (!) index to unusable?
As far as I know the CASCADE option should do exactly that... However, I observed differently on several occasions.
Hope some of you can help.
best regards,
daZza
The cascade option disables constraints that are dependent on this one, such as foreign keys dependent on a primary or unique constraint.
A unique index is not a constraint, although it acts as one.
In general I would advise that you create non-unique indexes to support a primary or unique key, not a unique index, for precisely this reason, and to allow constraints to be deferrable, or entirely dropped and recreated without having to recreate the index.
Related
I'm updating a table that was originally poorly designed. The table currently has a primary key that is the name of the vendor. This serves as a foreign key to many other tables. This has led to issues with the Vendor name initially being entered incorrectly or with typos that need to be fixed. Since it's the foreign key to relationships, this is more complicated than it's worth.
Current Schema:
Vendor_name(pk) Vendor_contact comments
Desired Schema:
id(pk) Vendor_name Vendor_contact comments
I want to update the primary key to be an auto-generated numeric key. The vendor name field needs to persist but no longer be the key. I'll also need to update the value of the foreign key on other tables and on join tables.
Is the best way to do this to create a new numeric id column on my Vendor table, crosswalk the id to vendor names and add a new foreign key with the new id as the foreign key, drop the foreign key of vendor name on those tables (per this post), and then somehow mark the id as the primary key and unmark the vendor name?
Or is there a more streamlined way of doing this that isn't so broken out?
It's important to note that only 5 users can access this table so I can easily shut them out for a period of time while these updates are made - that's not an issue.
I'm working with SQLDeveloper and Python/Django.
The biggest problem you have is all the application code which references VENDOR_NAME in the dependent tables. Not just using it to join to the parent table, but also relying on it to display the name without joining to VENDOR.
So, although having a natural key as a foreign key is a PITN, changing this situation is likely to generate a whole lot of work, with a marginal overall benefit. Be sure to get buy-in from all the stakeholders before starting out.
The way I would approach it is this:
Do a really thorough impact analysis
Ensure you have complete regression tests for all the functions which rely on the Vendor data
Create VENDOR_ID as a unique key on VENDOR
Add VENDOR_ID to all the dependent tables
Create a second foreign on all the dependent tables referencing VENDOR_ID
Ensure that the VENDOR_ID is populated whenever the VENDOR_NAME is.
That last point can be tackled by either fix the insert and update statements on the dependent tables, or with triggers. Which approach you take will determine on your application design and also the number of tables involved. Obviously you want to avoid the performance hit of all those triggers if you can.
At this point you have an infrastructure which will support the new primary key but which still uses the old one. Why would you want to do this? Because you could go into Production like this without changing the application code. It gives you the option to move the application code to use VENDOR_ID across a broader time frame. Obviously, if developers have been keen on coding SELECT * FROM you will have issues that need addressing immediately.
Once you've fixed all the code you can drop VENDOR_NAME from all the dependent tables, and switch VENDOR_NAME to unique key and VENDOR_ID to primary key on the master table.
If you're on 11g you should check out Edition-Based Redefinition. It's designed to make this sort of exercise an awful lot easier. Find out more.
I would do it this way:
create your new sequence
create table temp as select your_sequence.nextval,vendor_name, vendor_contact, comments from vendor.
rename the original table to something like vendor_old
add the primary key and other constraints to the new table
rename the new table to the old name
Testing is essential and you must ensure no one is working on the database except you when this is done.
How to create unique items in RethinkDB?
In MongoDb I used ensureIndex for this, eg:
userCollection.ensureIndex({email:1},{unique:true},function(err, indexName){
RethinkDB does not currently support uniqueness constraints on fields other than the primary key.
You could use an auxiliary table where the unique field is stored as the primary key in order to check for uniqueness in your application explicitly.
A relatively easy alternative would be to use a secondary index. Thus not messing with auxiliary tables.
You can than do the check in your application with the get_all method (http://rethinkdb.com/api/#js:selecting_data-get_all).
I am analyzing an Oracle database design and I am perplexed at seeing both unique keys and primary keys on the same fields. These unique-primary key pairs are consistently created on all tables. I see no reason to do this.
If I have a primary key anyway, is there a good reason to create an additional unique key on the same field?
For a table resolving a many-to-many it would be common to have a two part key (as indicated by Quassnoi). It is also quite likely to need indexes supporting access through either parent.
If you have, for example, PERSON, ADDRESS and PERSON_ADDRESS tables, your PERSON_ADDRESS table may have the primary key of (PERSON_ID, ADDRESS_ID) and a supporting index. You would also have another index on (ADDRESS_ID,PERSON_ID), and you would likely make this a UNIQUE index (as it is a unique combination of fields).
It is also possible that your DBA has some particular way of generating tables that starts with a UNIQUE index on the primary key fields followed by the creation of the PRIMARY KEY constraint. That may show up in some GUI tools in the way you suggest.
No, there is no reason to have it also as unique; when you set a column as PK you are sure that:
No NULL will be accepted for that column on INSERT or UPDATE;
Values in the whole table for that column are always UNIQUE;
so just PK is enough. Since there is a UNIQUE index for the PK column, by definition, there is no need to add any other index on that column only because queries will use the PK index whenever only that column is affected.
I believe it's impossible (PK and unique constraint on the same column[s])...
You cannot designate the same column or combination of columns as both a primary key and a unique key.
(from here, section "Restrictions on Primary Key Constraints"). Isn't it?
Oracle won't let you create multiple UNIQUE and PRIMARY KEY constraints on the same field set in the same order and will fail with ORA-02261.
If you have composite keys, you can create PRIMARY KEY on the column set in one order (PRIMARY KEY (a, b)) and a unique constraint on another (UNIQUE (b, a)).
This will parse and execute, however a single index will be used to police both constraints so it makes no sense.
Could you please post the table scripts?
Just a little theoretical background here... When modeling your table, you identify a set of keys. These keys are logically equivalent, but for practical purposes you pick one of them and call it "primary" while the rest of them become "alternate".
(In DDL SQL, a primary key is called "PRIMARY KEY", while "alternate key" is called "UNIQUE constraint".)
So, in light of that, your question is equivalent to: "is there a good reason to have two identical keys", and the answer is: "no".
That being said, you may have overlapping keys (i.e. keys that share some fields but not all), but this is usually a sign of a bad design... and the answer is: "probably not".
OTOH, if by "unique key", you actually mean "unique index", then yes, you need both of them.
Index is not a logical constraint - it is there just to allow a logical constraint such as PRIMARY KEY to perform well (and for querying, but that's a different topic).
I have to add some security for a C#/.NET WinForms/Desktop application. I am using Oracle DB back-end.
The tables are simple: User (ID,Name), Role(ID,Role), UserRole(UserID,RoleID).
I am using the windows account name to populate User table. Role table will for now just be simply 'Admin','SuperUser','BasicUser'...
Since no two people could ever possible have the same windows account name... even when I do not control these name management (netops does, hence why I want to use windows accounts so I don't have to manage it ;)). For Role table, I should again never have dupe value - I control the input, there will only be 3 (tactical app going away within year). UserRole is a join table to represent the Many-To-Many relationships of users and roles, so no surragate key is justified.
Simple question - Why bother with 'ID' (int) in the User and Role table? Any point or advantage here? Is this one of those 'I've always done it this way' type things? Or have I just not done this in awhile and forget the reason?
Names change - primary key values must not. Abigail Smith becomes Abigail Jones and the username changes but a surrogate key protects against having to cascade those changes everywhere.
If you are using a surrogate key but there is a column or combination of columns which should be unique, then enforce that using a unique index. There's a good chance you'll want indexes on your user.name and role.role columns anyway, and a unique index is more space efficient and supplies useful metadata to the optimizer. If you have a surrogate key but don't have another combination of columns that uniquely identify a row then think again whether you have your entity definition right.
One caution. Especially for very narrow tables with few access paths, you may use an index-organized table. Oracle will only allow an index organized table on the primary key, but does allow foreign keys against a unique set of columns (if it is enforced by a unique constraint, not simply a unique index).
It is possible that you'll end up with a table where a unique ID is enforced through a unique index and treated as PK by an ORM and used as the parent for foreign key relationships, but the primary key (as defined in the DB) is the rolename/username/whatever because you want that as the driver for an index-organised table.
A surrogate key is not required on intersection tables, but here are a few reasons to do so:
Consistency: If every table has a single artificial key, you always know the key name when you know the table name.
Ease Of Use: Less typing — one key means ON and WHERE clauses are shorter and thus less error-prone.
Interoperability: Some ORMs only work well with tables with a single primary key column.
Is it possible to maintain relationship between two tables without primary key and foreign key
if it is possible then how?
In a multi-user environment, you won't be able to maintain integrity (no orphan for example) without either foreign keys or a full TABLE LOCK on the child table. In other words, without foreign keys, you can't have both integrity and concurrency.
Yes, but it is highly inadvisable to do so. Any other solution you adopt will either perform less well, or be unreliable, or both.
Well, you could use a unique key for the parent table, you don't necessarily need to use the primary key :)
< /facetiousness >