How to make column with ARRAY(Integer) type, where each integer is primary key from some other table? If it's impossible, how to achieve similar table relationships with other method?
As of PostgreSQL 9.3, this is not implemented, see
http://blog.2ndquadrant.com/postgresql-9-3-development-array-element-foreign-keys/
One should turn array into other table.
Related
Problem:
I'd like to make a composite primary key from columns id and user_id for a postgres database table. Column user_id is a foreign key with an integer type, whereas id is a string. Will this cause a conflict because the types are different?
Edit: Also, are there combinations of types that would cause problems?
Context:
I obviously should match the type of the User.id field for its foreign key. And, the id for my table will be derived from a uuid to prevent data leaks. So I would prefer not to change the types of either field I want in this table.
Research:
I am using sqlalchemy. Their documentation mentions how to create a composite primary key, but it doesn't discuss dealing with different types for each column.
No, this won't be a problem.
Your question seems to indicate that you think, the values of the indexed columns are somehow concatenated and then stored in the index as a single value. This is not the case. Each column value is stored independently but together. Similar to the way the column values are stored in the actual table.
Hi all,
Can any understand what's going on here?
The case is:
There are 2 tables, called "matricula" and "pagament" with a 1:1 relationship cardinality.
Table matricula primary key composed by 3 fields "edicio","curs" and "estudiant".
Table pagament primary key, the same as above. Furthermore, it references matricula.
As shown, trying to insert a row in pagament table is rejected because it does not exists a row in table matricula. However, asking for this row returns one result.
What am I missing?
Thanks you all
Carles
The problem is that the order of the fields in both tables is not the same, and, moreover, the restriction of the foreign key in table pagament, said that
foreign key (estudiant,curs,edicio) references matricula
without specifying the matricula fields.
It's been solved by setting this restriction as
foreign key (estudiant,curs,edicio) references matricula(estudiant,curs,edicio)
TL;DR
I am seeking clarity on this: does a FOREIGN KEY require a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on the other side, specifically, in Postgres and, generally, in relational database systems?
Perhaps, I can test this, but I'll ask, if the UNIQUE CONSTRAINT is required by the FOREIGN KEY what would happen if I don't create it? Will the Database create one or will it throw an error?
How I got there
I had earlier on created a table with a column username on which I imposed a unique constraint. I then created another table with a column bearer_name having a FOREIGN KEY referencing the previous table's column username; the one which had a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
Now, I want to drop the UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on the username column from the database because I have later on created a UNIQUE INDEX on the same column and intuitively I feel that they serve the same purpose, or don't they? But the database is complaining that the UNIQUE INDEX has some dependent objects and so it can't be dropped unless I provide CASCADE as an option in order to drop even the dependent object. It's identifying the FOREIGN KEY on bearer_name column in the second table as the dependent object.
And is it possible for the FOREIGN KEY to be a point to the UNIQUE INDEX instead of the UNIQUE CONSTRAINT?
I am seeking clarity on this: does a FOREIGN KEY require a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT on the other side
No it does not require only UNIQUE CONSTRAINT. It could be PRIMARY KEY or UNIQUE INDEX.
Perhaps, I can test this, but I'll ask, if the UNIQUE CONSTRAINT is required by the FOREIGN KEY what would happen if I don't create it? Will the Database create one or will it throw an error?
CREATE TABLE tab_a(a_id INT, b_id INT);
CREATE TABLE tab_b(b_id INT);
ALTER TABLE tab_a ADD CONSTRAINT fk_tab_a_tab_b FOREIGN KEY (b_id)
REFERENCES tab_b(b_id);
ERROR: there is no unique constraint matching given keys
for referenced table "tab_b"
DBFiddle Demo
And is it possible for the FOREIGN KEY to be a point to the UNIQUE INDEX instead of the UNIQUE CONSTRAINT?
Yes, it is possible.
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX tab_b_i ON tab_b(b_id);
DBFiddle Demo2
In table A I've got a composite of 3 columns as a primary key. I want to have only one of these three columns as a foreign key in table B, just to make sure that the value that I insert into table B's column exists in table A.
Currently from what I've read it looks like in Entity Framework I have to add all three columns of composite PK, which is not really what I need. The latest answer that I've found was of 2015, maybe since then something changed?
I know that I can add a manual check on each insert/update call, but I don't want to do that, maybe there is more elegant way.
Now i am working in SQLite database. I want to add primary key from my existing table. But i couldn't add the primary key in existing table and i have deleted all the records in the old table. So how can i add the primary key from existing table in SQLite?
Here my query is,
alter table studetails add constraint pk primary key (rollno).
I have used that above query, but it shown error. Is it possible?, if yes, please guide me.
Thanks!
you cannot according to SQLite's syntax perform this operation. In general it seems strange to add a primary key to an existing table. This should be done using the create table statement (you can also add an index by create index).
Br
Anders
Alter table in SQLite
Create table in SQLite