I have the following relation:
Theater = (theaterID, viewerID, viewerAge, room)
theaterID and viewerID are the primary keys.
I know that it is not in second normal form because viewerAge is functionally dependent on viewerID which is only part of the primary key.
My question is how would I rewrite this relation in 2NF?
The following will do:
Theater = (theaterID, viewerID, room)
Viewer = (viewerID, viewerAge)
Note the following two things though:
Stackoverflow is not a mechanical (crowd-source) version of "Hey Google" or "Siri". If it is your homework/assignment, ask your professor or your tutor.
Having said that, you may need to create two tables because each relation becomes a table in an RDBMS.
Leave only theater ID as a primary key?
Related
Sorry if this is a relatively easy problem to solve; I read the docs on inheritance and I'm still confused on how I would do this.
Let's say I have the parent table being car_model, which has the name of the car and some of it's features as the columns (e.g. car_name, car_description, car_year, etc). Basically a list of cars.
I have the child table being car_user, which has the column user_id.
Basically, I want to link a car to the car_user, so when I call
SELECT car_name FROM car_user WHERE user_id = "name", I could retrieve the car_name. I would need a linking component that links car_user to the car.
How would I do this?
I was thinking of doing something like having car_name column in car_user, so when I create a new data row in car_user, it could link the 2 together.
What's the best way to solve this problem?
Inheritance is something completely different. You should read about foreign keys and joins.
If one user drives only one car, but many users can drive same car, you need to build one-to-many -relation. Add car_name to your user table and JOIN using that field.
Just starting out with Entity Framework (Code First) and I have to say I am having a lot of problems with it when loading SQL data that is fairly complex. For example, let's say I have the following tables which stores which animals belongs to which regions in the world and the animal are also categorized.
Table: Region
Id: integer
Name string
Table AnimalCategory
Id integer
Name: string
RegionId: integer -- Refers back Region
Table Animal
Id integer
AnimalCategoryId integer -- Refers back AnimalCategory
Let's say I want to create a query with Entity Framework that would load all Animals for a specific region. The easiest thing to do is to create 3 Entities Region, AnimalCategory, and Animal and use LINQ to load the data.
But let's say I am not interested in loading any AnimalCategory information and define an Entity class just to represent AnimalCategory so that I can do the JOIN. How can I do this with Entity Framework? Even with many of its Mapping functions I still don't think this is possible.
In non Entity Framework solutions this is easy to accomplish by using INNER JOINs in SPs or inline SQL. So what are my options in Entity Framework? Shall I pollute my data model with these useless tables just so I can do a JOIN?
It's a matter of choice I guess. EF choose to support many-to-many associations with transparent junction tables, i.e. where junction tables only have two foreign keys to the associated entities. They simply didn't choose to support this far less common "skipping one-to-many-to-many" scenario in a similar manner.
And I can imagine why.
To start with, in a many-to-many association, the junction table is nothing but that: a junction, an association. However, in a chain of one-to-many (or many-to-one) associations it would be exceptional for any of the involved tables to be just an association. In your example...
Animal → AnimalCategory → Region
...AnimalCategory would only have a primary key (Id) and a foreign key (RegionId). That would be useless though: Animal might just as well have a RegionId itself. There's no reason to support a data model that doesn't make sense.
What you're after though, is a model in which the table in the middle does carry information (AnimalCategory.Name), but where you'd like to map it as a transparent junction table, because a particular class model doesn't need this information.
Your focus seems to be on reading data. But EF has to support all CRUD actions. The problem here would be: how to deal with inserts? Suppose Name is a required field. There would be no way to supply its value.
Another problem would be that a statement like...
region.Animals.Add(animal);
...could mean two things:
add an Animal and a new AnimalCategory, the latter referring to the Region.
Add an Animal referring to an existing AnimalCategory - without being able to choose which one.
EF wouldn't want to choose for some default behavior. You'd have to make the choice yourself, so you can't do without access to AnimalCategory.
I'm using entity framework 4.3 model first and can't figure out why I'm not allowed to have a one to zero-to-one association along with a referential constraint.
I have two main problems. I can't force referential integrity (without manual intervention) and my lazy loading doesn't seem to work... all my 1 to many associations are fine.
I basically have two tables, Loans and Contracts. The Contracts table has a scalar field for LoanId.
Until a loan is submitted, it does not have contract data and I chose not to place everything in the same table due to the size of the contract data. Ie. I don't want contract data retrieved from the database unless it is actually required.
I've searched around and can't seem to find any model first information that clearly answers my questions. Any information that may help me understand and clarify my problem would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
Craig
I guess LoanId field is not a primary key in Contracts table. In such case you cannot have such one-to-one relation because EF doesn't support it. When you create LoanId field in Contracts table the only way to force one-to-one relation is to add unique constraint on that field. EF currently doesn't support unique keys (except primary keys) so the only way to create one-to-one relation is to create relation between primary keys (Loan.Id <-> Contract.Id). If you don't follow this you will get error in designer.
While creating a schema from a database many-to-many relationships between tables are not created.
Is this a principal problem?
Is it possible to detect from the table structure that many-to-many relationships exist and create the respective code in schema classes automagically?
It is indeed a somewhat fundamental problem -- many_to_many is a "relationship bridge" and not a "relation." The documentation explains that "the difference between a bridge and a relationship is, that the bridge cannot be used to join tables in a search, instead its component relationships must be used."
On the other hand, this means that if the real relationships are correctly discovered it should be straightforward to add the many-to-many relationships automatically: First, search for tables that have two or more has_many relationships. Then, for each pair of such relationships, create a many-to-many relationship bridge. (Of course, one might hope that DBIx::Class would do this itself.)
The problem with developing this kind of code is that many tables that contain multiple references are not many-to-many tables, and have multiple references for other reasons. For instance, I'll make up a schema for some fictional app where something could be regarded as a many-to-many table, when it is not.
create table category (
id primary key,
...
);
create table sub_category (
id primary key,
category references category(id),
...
);
/* EDIT:
This is the table that could be regarded as many_to_many
by an automated system */
create table product (
id primary key,
category references category(id),
sub_category references sub_category(id),
...
);
Something could be built this way for ease of use, without having to do multiple table joins in the database on a website, especially when considering speed. It would be difficult for a piece of code to say definitively 'this is not a many_to_many' situation, while the developer should be able to easily figure it out, and add in the many_to_many line below the checksum.
I consider DBIX::Class schema outputs a good starting point, and little more, especially when working with auto numbering in non-MySQL databases, among other things. I often need to modify above the "Don't modify above this line" stuff (although many_to_many can obviously go below that checksum, of course.
I have the following tables in the database (just a demo, of course):
Positions
PositionId
Limits
LimitId
PositionId
I want to left join them into a single entity (always have position, not always have a limit attached to it):
Position
PositionId
LimitId
I've seen articles regarding one-to-one mapping and "Table per type inheritence", and tried to implement the same method here, but with no sucess. Is that even possible?
I think what you want is an ordinary inner join where your foreign key (PositionID in the Limits table) is allowed to be null.
Yes and no...In my scenario, the 2nd option is the applicable one, since I don't have the same primary key in both tables. so, I must create an updateable view...The problem with updateable view is that I can't modify fields which are in different tables and expect the database to handle it, unless I use "Instead of" triggers, which I really don't want to get into at all...
So, I guess there's nothing out of the box for me...damn.
(Unless you have another idea...)
Anyways, I really thank you for your help, it's much appreciated.
Nir.