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 >
Related
I am new in laravel. In my tutorial video teacher use foreign in migration but,i can create my relationships without it and use just belongTo and hasMany.When i use foreign can not delete one post easily (error is you can not delete because parent foreign has child ......).
my question is my way is good or not? and why?
Thank you all
Your way is good but I think foreign keys are better. Had you not had that foreign key, you would have deleted the post but all that post's children (referred to as orphans because they no longer have a parent) would have stuck around. In order to get around the foreign key error, you would need to first delete all the children for that post, and then delete the post.
The good news is foreign keys can also do this for you so you don't need to worry about keeping track of all the children. When you setup the foreign key, if you add the on delete cascade clause, when deleting the post, the database would automatically remove all of the posts's children for you and deleting a post without first deleting the children would no longer result in an error.
If it's your preference to keep the children around even when the post is deleted, you can use on delete set null instead which would simply set the children's foreign key to null rather than delete the record.
This is all useful for enforcing data integrity (databases should contain only accurate and valid data).
The answer really is not 'is this good practice in Laravel' so much as 'is this good practice for database management'.
There are many articles on the topic as to the good and bad side of using foreign keys. Here is a good explanation on the DBA stack exchange
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/168590/not-using-foreign-key-constraints-in-real-practice-is-it-ok
My personal preference is to use them to maintain data integrity. The real power comes in adding cascading deletes to the relationship (if applicable to your design).
It really comes down to how good you want your database to be.The main reasons to use foreign keys in your database are
To prevent actions that would destroy links between your tables
This would prevent the invalid data from being inserted to the foreign key column as it has to point to a existing value
Also defining foreign keys makes your query faster depending on database I don't know the exact milliseconds but if I find it out I will post it.
Well from the laravel point of view the way you do is a better way as this is how one of the main teacher of the Laravel(Jeffrey Way) teaches in the getting started with laravel series.
Foreign Keys are the way to define relationship between tables in your database whereas Laravel belongsTo() or hasMany() is a way to define relationship between tables in Laravel
I now writing automation program for system based on MSSQL Server, using Ruby 1.9.3 and ActiveRecord 3.1.6 without Rails.
Tables have nonstandard ids (stk_id, urb_id, instead of id), also some tables haven't primary keys.
Before I added column id and set it as primary key my program worked very slowly. I waited nearly 3 minutes while the program makes two operations of selection and some little processing in table with 9000 records. But when I added column id and set it as primary key, these operations were finished in less then 10 secs.
Yet another problem I found in deletion operation: it doesn't work at all without primary key in table. Error when trying to delete without primary key:
undefined method `to_sym' for nil:NilClass
I can't modify the table structure of the production database. Maybe someone knows how to solve this problem without adding id columns and setting primary keys?
Remark: A database without primary keys is BAD !
http://www.helium.com/items/1539899-why-a-relational-database-needs-a-primary-key
Using nonstandard keys is no problem, just use self.primary_key = "stk_id"
You may also use composite_primary_keys:
https://github.com/drnic/composite_primary_keys
Create indexed views on each of the tables with no primary key. A unique clustered index as well as other indexes as needed can be applied. Including a single table in the view should prevent you from violating the many conditions an indexed view requires/prohibits.
I suggest looking into using Sequel instead of ActiveRecord. It is not opinionated about the database schema like ActiveRecord is and may be easier to use with a database schema you can't modify.
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.
I have been attempting to use subsonic for a project on which I'm working. All was going quite well until I encountered a link table with a composite primary key. That is a key made up of the primary keys of the two tables it joins. Subsonic failed to recognize both keys which was problematic. I was going to adjust subsonic to support compound keys but I stopped and though "Maybe there is a reason for this". Normally active record relies on a single primary key field for every record, even in link tables. But is this necessary? Should I just give up on active record for this project or continue with my modifications?
Ruby on Rails does not support composite primary keys in model object out of the box. However, there are plugins that accomplish that, for example this.
You can have composite primary key on a join table, but Rails will not create that primary key, you have to create it manually.
See this guide.