Brief model overview:
I have a student and a course tables. As it's many to many relation there is also a junction table student_course (id_student, id_course), with unique constraint on both columns (composite).
The problem I want to solve:
On account of a mistake, there is no a unique constraint on the code column of the course table. It should as code column should uniquely identify a course. As a result there are two rows in the course table with the same value in the code column. I want to remove that duplicate, check that there is no other duplicates and add a unique constraint on the code column. Without loosing relations with student table.
My approach to solve the issue:
I have create a procedure that should do what I want.
CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE REMOVE_COURSES
(
v_course_code IN VARCHAR2,
v_course_price IN VARCHAR2
)
AS
new_course_id NUMBER;
BEGIN
INSERT INTO course (CODE, PRICE) VALUES (v_course_code, v_course_price)
RETURNING ID INTO new_course_id;
FOR c_course_to_overwrite IN (SELECT *
FROM course
WHERE code = v_course_code AND id != new_course_id) LOOP
UPDATE student_course SET id_course = new_course_id WHERE id_course = c_course_to_overwrite.id;
DELETE FROM course WHERE id = c_course_to_overwrite.id;
END LOOP;
END REMOVE_COURSES;
/
Main problem I want to solve:
The procedure keeps giving me an error about unique constraint violation on student_course table. But I am really not sure how it's possible as I am using new_course_id, so there is no chance that in the junction table there are two rows with the same id_student, id_course. What do I need to fix ?
Miscellaneous:
I want to solve that issue using procedure only for learning purposes
EDITED:
CREATE TABLE student (
id NUMBER GENERATED BY DEFAULT ON NULL AS IDENTITY,
name VARCHAR2(150) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);
ALTER TABLE student MODIFY ID
GENERATED BY DEFAULT ON NULL AS IDENTITY (START WITH LIMIT VALUE);
CREATE TABLE course (
id NUMBER GENERATED BY DEFAULT ON NULL AS IDENTITY,
code VARCHAR2(255) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);
ALTER TABLE course MODIFY ID
GENERATED BY DEFAULT ON NULL AS IDENTITY (START WITH LIMIT VALUE);
CREATE TABLE student_course (
id_student NUMBER NOT NULL,
id_course NUMBER NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id_student, id_course),
CONSTRAINT student_fk FOREIGN KEY (id_student) REFERENCES student (id),
CONSTRAINT course_fk FOREIGN KEY (id_course) REFERENCES course (id)
);
insert into student (name) values ('John');
INSERT INTO course (ID, CODE) VALUES (1, 'C_13');
INSERT INTO course (ID, CODE) VALUES (2, 'C_13');
commit;
INSERT INTO STUDENT_COURSE (ID_STUDENT, ID_COURSE) VALUES (1, 1);
INSERT INTO STUDENT_COURSE (ID_STUDENT, ID_COURSE) VALUES (1, 2);
commit;
CALL REMOVE_COURSES('C_13');
[23000][1] ORA-00001: unique constraint (SYS_C0014983) violated ORA-06512: near "REMOVE_COURSES", line 8
Rather than removing one of the duplicate codes, you're creating a third course with the same code, and trying to move all students on either of the old courses onto the new one. The error suggests you have students who are already enrolled on both of the old courses.
Your cursor loop query is:
SELECT *
FROM course
WHERE code = v_course_code AND id != new_course_id
That will find all junction records for both old versions of the code, and the update then sets all of those junction records to the same new ID.
If there are any students listed against both old IDs for the code - which would be allowed by your composite unique key - then they will both be updated to the same new ID.
So say the courses you're looking at are [updated for your example code]:
ID CODE
-- ----
1 C_13
2 C_13
and you have junction records for a student for both courses, like:
ID_STUDENT ID_COURSE
---------- ---------
1 1
1 2
You are creating a new course:
ID CODE
-- ----
3 C_13
Your cursor loop looks for code = 'ABC' and ID != 3, which finds IDs 1 and 2. So in the first iteration of the loop up update the rows with ID 1, so now you have:
ID_STUDENT ID_COURSE
---------- ---------
1 3
1 2
Then in the second iteration you try to update the rows with ID 2, which would attempt to produce:
ID_STUDENT ID_COURSE
---------- ---------
1 3
1 3
which would break the unique constraint - hence the error.
You probably don't want to create a new course at all, but either way, you need to remove duplicate records from student_course - that is, rows which will become duplicates when updated. Basically you need to find students with entries for both existing course IDs, and delete either of them. If you don't care which this would do it:
delete from student_course sc1
where id_course in (
select id
from course
where code = 'C_13'
)
and exists (
select null
from student_course sc2
join course c on c.id = sc.id_course
where sc2.id_student = sc1.id_student
and sc2.id_course > sc1.id_course
and c.code = 'C_13'
);
but there are other (probably better) ways.
You then have the choice of updating all remaining junction records for both old IDs to your new ID; or to consolidate on one of the old IDs and remove the other.
(Your question implies you want to solve the overall task yourself, so I'll refrain from trying to provide a complete solution - this just hopefully helps you understand and resolve your main problem...)
I have a problem like
Table A:
-- TableBCId
Table B:
-- Id
Table C:
-- Id
I am looking for a way to create a foreign key table A where an entry can be either in table B or table C
Example entries:
Table A:
-- TableBCId: 1
-- TableBCId: 2
Table B:
-- Id: 1
Table C:
-- Id: 2
I want to avoid if possible:
- Two columns in table A
- Default values
- Additional tables
- Creation of an base entity is not possible
Every idea welcome
The normal way to implement this requirement is with 2 columns, 2 foreign key constraints, and a check constraint to ensure exactly of of the columns populated (if this is a requirement):
create table a
( ...
, b_id references b
, c_id references c
, constraint <name> check ( (b_id is null and c_id is not null)
or (b_id is not null and c_id is null)
)
);
You could, if it helps your UI, create a view over that table that combines B_ID and C_ID into a single column.
But you have said you don't want 2 columns, why is that?
The reason why this is hard is because the data model is wrong. A foreign key references only one table. A table can have more than one foreign key but each is separate. Apart from anything else, how would you know whether bc_id referenced b.id or c.id?
One explanation for this scenario is that table A should really be two tables, BA referencing B and CA referencing C. Alternatively A should reference a super-type table, of which B and C are sub-types. Without knowing the actual business domain it's hard to be sure.
Anyway, the path of least change is two columns.
You can use a insert/update trigger on your Table_A.
Maybe something like this:
CREATE TRIGGER Table_a_trgr
BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE
on Table_a
FOR EACH ROW
DECLARE
c_row NUMBER;
BEGIN
SELECT count(*)
INTO c_row
FROM (
SELECT ID FROM table_b WHERE id = :NEW.TableBCId
UNION ALL
SELECT ID FROM table_c WHERE İd = :NEW.TableBCId
)
;
IF c_row < 2 THEN
raise_application_error(-20000, 'Error, Foreign Key');
END IF;
END;
/
If you don't want to make a new column in table A.
Then you can make a parent table to B and C.
tableBC:
id
And then create a 1-1 relation with tables B and C to table BC.
tableB:
id,
parent -- 1-1 foreign key to tableBC
tableC:
id,
parent -- 1-1 foreign key to tableBC
Now, in table A
tableA:
id,
TableBCId -- foreign key to tableBC
We have solved a similar problem using this approach.
table 1
ID - name - main_number - random1 - random2
1* -aaaa-blalablabla*- *** - *
2 -vvvv-blublubluuu*- *** - *
3 -aaaa-blalablabla*- *** - **
ID , name and main number are primary key
My problem that I have noticed coulmn name and main number has duplicate values, i dont want to ADD ANY OTHER DUPLICATE VALUES ( I should keep the old duplicat because in my real table there are a lot of duplicated data and its hard to remove them )
what I want when I TRY ( BEFORE TO COMMIT) to know that this name I am trying to insert is duplicate.
I can do that with in a procedure or triger, but i have heard constraint checking is simpler and easier(if there a simpler way then procedure or triger ill be glad to learn it)
CONSTRAINT check_name
CHECK (name = (A_name))
can the constaraint have more then 1 column in such way?
CONSTRAINT check_name
CHECK (name = (A_name) , main_number=( A_number))
can I a write a constaraint in such way?
CONSTRAINT check_name
CHECK (name = ( select case where there is an column has the same value of column name))
So my question : Is there a way simelar to check constraint to help me to know if there is a duplicate column or I have to use a trigger ?
Since your database is Oracle you could also use NOVALIDATE constraints. Meaning: "doesn't matter how the data is, just validate from now on".
create table tb1
(field1 number);
insert into tb1 values (1);
insert into tb1 values (1);
insert into tb1 values (1);
insert into tb1 values (2);
insert into tb1 values (2);
commit;
-- There should be an non-unique index first
create index idx_t1 on tb1 (field1);
alter table tb1 add constraint pk_t1 primary key(field1) novalidate;
-- If you try to insert another 1 or 2 you would get an error
insert into tb1 values (1);
Yes, you can use constraints on many columns.
But in this case constraint is not applicable, because all table rows must satisfy constraints. Use a trigger.
Constraints cannot contain subqueries.
Alternatively use unique index, that will enforce unique constraint
create unique index index1 on table1
(case when ID <= XXX then null else ID end,
case when ID <= XXX then null else name end);
Replace 'XXX' with your current max(ID).
I assume that you want to prevent duplicate records as defined by the combination of name and main_number.
Then the way to go is to cleanup your database, and create a unique index:
create unique index <index_name> on <table> (name, main_number)
This both checks, and speed's it up.
In theory, if you really wanted to keep the old duplicate records, you could get along by using a trigger, but then you will have a hard time trying to get sense out of this data.
Update
If you used the trigger, you would end up with two partitions of data in one table - one is checked, the other is not. So all of your queries must pay attention to it. You just delay your problem.
So either clean it up (by deleting or merging) or move the old data in a separate table.
You can use SQL select ... group by to find your duplicates, so you can delete/move them in one turn.
I have a table STUDENT with columns st_id,name,age,dept_name. Now I want to create a new table STUDENT_DESC with columns st_id,dept_name,st_desc. So I need to copy all the values of st_id and dept_name to the newly created table STUDENT_DESC. I need to ensure relationship while copying st_id and dept_name , the dept_name should be corresponding to st_id.So how can I do it in PL/SQL?
insert into STUDENT_DESC (select st_id, dept_name, null from student);
this will simply copy all the records. The third column st_desc is left empty (null)
To ensure referential integrity you would add a primary key and a referential integrity constraint to the STUDENT_DESC table
However, note that in many cases it could be "wrong" to introduce a second table containing student data like that. It could be "better" to add st_desc to the STUDENT table.
I'm not sure I understand your data model, but at face value you can create your table simply:
CREATE TABLE student_desc AS SELECT st_id, dept_name FROM student;
ALTER TABLE student_desc ADD (st_desc VARCHAR2(..));
Fill in the .. with the desired max size for st_desc.
Can a One-To-Constant Relationship be completely modeled in Oracle with constraints? In other words, the PARENT entity ALWAYS has EXACTLY n-CHILDREN of the child entity, and each child only has one parent.
Consider n to be a database constant.
Doing this so that it is sound and correct even when multiple sessions are doing updates is not easy. You will get yourself in a mess if you try this with triggers, and Oracle's declarative constraints are not powerful enough to express this.
It can be done as follows:-
Create a materialized view log on both the parent and the child tables
Create a materialized join view that joins them together and counts the number of children grouped by the parent. This must be REFRESH FAST ON COMMIT
Put a constraint on the materialized join view that the count of child records must equal "n" (your database constant)
You can then do a series of insert/update/delete statements. When you commit, the materialized view will refresh and if the condition is not met you will get a constraint violation error at that point.
A bonus bit of trickery is to only include rows that fail the constraint into the materialized view (HAVING count(ChildId) <> 5) so you do not waste any storage space.
Building upon the earler "chicken + egg" points, you can create deferrable constraints which aren't validated until commit time... these might help?
e.g.
ALTER TABLE AGREEMENTS ADD CONSTRAINT name FOREIGN KEY (column) REFERENCES table (column) DEFERRABLE INITIALLY DEFERRED;
I don't see how. It is the old question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". How can you constrain the parent when no children have been added yet, and how can you add children without a parent?
you could create a new table, called something like "ValidParents" that only has the parent IDs that have N children, and keep it in sync with triggers.
There is an alternative solution to force each parent to have exactly either 0 or n children without materialized views using just check, foreign key and uniqueness constraints. For this, one has to number the children and add a field containing the number of the next sibling. Here an example for n=5 that works in PostgreSQL, for other DBS one has to adapt probably the type serial:
create table Tree(
id serial,
parent_id integer not null references Tree(id),
child_nr integer check(child_nr between 1 and 5),
next_sibling_nr integer,
unique (parent_id, child_nr),
check(next_sibling_nr in (child_nr+1, child_nr-4)),
check(((parent_id is null) and (child_nr is null) and
(next_sibling_nr is null)) or ((parent_id is not null)
and (child_nr is not null) and (next_sibling_nr is not null))),
foreign key (parent_id, next_sibling_nr) references Tree(parent_id, child_nr),
primary key (id)
);
The last (long) check constraint ensures that the fields parent_id, child_nr and next_sibling_nr are all null or all not null. The uniqueness constraint and the check for the child_nr field take care that a parent has at most 5 children. The other check constraint and the foreign key constraint on the pair (parent_id, next_sibling_nr) ensure that there are not less than 5 children.
After inserting a root with automatically generated id 1 with the command
insert into Tree (parent_id)
values (null);
one can add children always in packs of 5:
insert into Tree (parent_id, child_nr, next_sibling_nr)
values (1, 1, 2),
(1, 2, 3),
(1, 3, 4),
(1, 4, 5),
(1, 5, 1);
This solution is derived from the answers to a similar question I asked some weeks ago.
This may not be what you want, but I do have one method that does something similar.
The usual arrangement for one-to-many is something like this:
Primary Table:
primary_id (PK)
primary_stuff
Secondary Table:
secondary_id (PK)
primary_id (FK)
secondary_stuff
The alternative, to model a strict one-to-one would be:
Primary Table:
primary_id (PK)
secondary_id (FK, non-null)
primary_stuff
Secondary Table:
secondary_id (PK)
secondary_stuff
It might be a bit strange, but it works. A variation of this may be useful where there's a one-to-many with a one-to-one in it, such as having multiple addresses for a customer, but exactly one billing address.
An alternative solutionb to the chicken and egg problem is to use INSERT ALL. Because it is a single statement it obviates the need for deferrable foreign key constraints. It also provides a mechanism for inserting an exact number of dependent rows. Additional constraints prevent the insertion of additional rows. But we need a subsidiary table with foreign keys to prevent the accidental deletion of the rows of interest.
In this example, n = 3.
SQL> create table parent
2 ( pk_col number not null
3 , col1 varchar2(20)
4 , constraint par_pk primary key (pk_col)
5 )
6 /
Table created.
SQL>
SQL> create table child
2 ( pk_col number not null
3 , seqno number(1,0) not null
4 , col2 date
5 , constraint ch_pk primary key
6 (pk_col, seqno)
7 , constraint ch_par_fk foreign key
8 (pk_col) references parent (pk_col)
9 , constraint ch_ck check (seqno between 1 and 3)
10 )
11 /
Table created.
SQL>
SQL> create table child_lock
2 ( pk_col_1 number not null
3 , seqno_1 number(1,0) not null
4 , pk_col_2 number not null
5 , seqno_2 number(1,0) not null
6 , pk_col_3 number not null
7 , seqno_3 number(1,0) not null
8 , constraint chlk_pk primary key
9 (pk_col_1, seqno_1, pk_col_2, seqno_2, pk_col_3, seqno_3)
10 , constraint chlk_par_1_fk foreign key
11 (pk_col_1, seqno_1) references child (pk_col, seqno)
12 , constraint chlk_par_2_fk foreign key
13 (pk_col_2, seqno_2) references child (pk_col, seqno)
14 , constraint chlk_par_3_fk foreign key
15 (pk_col_3, seqno_3) references child (pk_col, seqno)
16 )
17 /
Table created.
SQL>
SQL> insert all
2 into parent values (pk_val, val_1)
3 into child values (pk_val, 1, sysdate)
4 into child values (pk_val, 2, sysdate+1)
5 into child values (pk_val, 3, sysdate+2)
6 into child_lock values (pk_val, 1, pk_val, 2, pk_val, 3)
7 select 999 as pk_val
8 , 'APPLE PIE' as val_1
9 from dual
10 /
5 rows created.
SQL>
SQL> insert into child values (999, 4, sysdate+4)
2 /
insert into child values (999, 4, sysdate+4)
*
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-02290: check constraint (APC.CH_CK) violated
SQL> insert into child values (999, 3, sysdate+4)
2 /
insert into child values (999, 3, sysdate+4)
*
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00001: unique constraint (APC.CH_PK) violated
SQL> insert into child values (999, 2.5, sysdate+4)
2 /
insert into child values (999, 2.5, sysdate+4)
*
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-00001: unique constraint (APC.CH_PK) violated
SQL> delete from child
2 /
delete from child
*
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-02292: integrity constraint (APC.CHLK_PAR_1_FK) violated - child record found
SQL>
I accept the solution is a trifle contrived and also inflexible, but then so is the original requirement. It is also far from bulletproof - delete the row from CHILD_LOCK and you can delete one or more CHILD records.
You can create your tables as normal with a 1:M relationship, then on the child table have a count column with a check constraint that determines how many children can exist for a parent, as well as a unique constraint over the Parent ID + count column. e.g.:
CREATE TABLE Parent (PID NUMBER PRIMARY KEY);
CREATE TABLE Child (
PID NUMBER NOT NULL,
Count NUMBER(1) NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT count_check CHECK (Count BETWEEN 1 AND 5),
CONSTRAINT parent_child_fk FOREIGN KEY (PID) REFERENCES Parent (PID),
CONSTRAINT count_unique UNIQUE (PID, Count));
The only thing this doesn't guarantee is that for each parent there are AT LEAST five children; to get around this you might create a materialized view with a constraint as WW suggests, or build something extra in the application (e.g. an "error" report).