I have long gene sequence which could be the natural primary key, but I'm looking for a way to find a more succinct alternative representation of the natural key. Do not want to use a surrogate key. Not worried about performance, since there will not be a lot of joins to worry about where the efficiency of the PK is an issue.
Is this possible?
create table foo(
myvalue varchar(2000) not null,
md5 as hashbytes('MD5',myvalue) PERSISTED PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL -- bad syntax
)
If so, what's the correct syntax? The above is not correct.
Also can I create a child table and set up an FK relationship? I do not find the Limitations section in the documentation clear about this:
create table fooChild(
id int primary key not null,
md5 varbinary(16)
)
alter table fooChild add constraint FK_FOOCHILD_FOO
foreign key(md5) references FOO(md5)
Here is the answer. http://www.devx.com/tips/Tip/15397
Basically you have to ensure a function cannot return null so wrap hashbytes in isnull or coalesce.
Related
I am trying to create the following tables in Postgres 13.3:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS accounts (
account_id Integer PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS users (
user_id Integer PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
account_id Integer NOT NULL REFERENCES accounts(account_id) ON DELETE CASCADE
);
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS calendars (
calendar_id Integer PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
user_id Integer NOT NULL,
account_id Integer NOT NULL,
FOREIGN KEY (user_id, account_id) REFERENCES users(user_id, account_id) ON DELETE CASCADE
);
But I get the following error when creating the calendars table:
ERROR: there is no unique constraint matching given keys for referenced table "users"
Which does not make much sense to me since the foreign key contains the user_id which is the PK of the users table and therefore also has a uniqueness constraint. If I add an explicit uniqueness constraint on the combined user_id and account_id like so:
ALTER TABLE users ADD UNIQUE (user_id, account_id);
Then I am able to create the calendars table. This unique constraint seems unnecessary to me as user_id is already unique. Can someone please explain to me what I am missing here?
Postgres is so smart/dumb that it doesn't assume the designer to do stupid things.
The Postgres designers could have taken different strategies:
Detect the transitivity, and make the FK not only depend on users.id, but also on users.account_id -> accounts.id. This is doable but costly. It also involves adding multiple dependency-records in the catalogs for a single FK-constraint. When imposing the constraint(UPDATE or DELETE in any of the two referred tables), it could get very complex.
Detect the transitivity, and silently ignore the redundant column reference. This implies: lying to the programmer. It would also need to be represented in the catalogs.
cascading DDL operations would get more complex, too. (remember: DDL is already very hard w.r.t. concurrency/versioning)
From the execution/performance point of view: imposing the constraints currently involves "pseudo triggers" on the referred table's indexes. (except DEFERRED, which has to be handled specially)
So, IMHO the Postgres developers made the sane choice of refusing to do stupid complex things.
Can I have two tables with different constrains that are names the same - that is:
Table A with constraint C
Table B with constraint C
The constrains are different
Thanks!
I couldn't find any suitable reference in the documentation but it would seem that the uniqueness of the constraint name depends on the type of constraint.
unique and primary key constraint names must be unique and may not be reused in multiple tables, but check and foreign key constraint names can be used in multiple tables (although that might be a bad idea for obvious reasons).
I would guess that the reason is that unique and primary key constraints create indexes and therefore needs to be uniquely named.
I didn't find where is it mentionned in postgres documentation. Here's a confirmation that constraint name but be different in the database.
CREATE TABLE type_position(
type_position INTEGER CONSTRAINT pk_type_position PRIMARY KEY,
description VARCHAR( 64 )
);
CREATE TABLE type_position2(
type_position INTEGER CONSTRAINT pk_type_position PRIMARY KEY,
description VARCHAR( 64 )
);
And I got the message
ERROR: relation "pk_type_position" already exists
I have a database which has three tables
Messages - PK = MessageId
Drafts - PK = DraftId
History - FK = RelatedItemId
The History table has a single foreign Key [RelatedItemId] which maps to one of the two Primary keys in Messages and Drafts.
Is there a name for this relationship?
Is it just bad design?
Is there a better way to design this relationship?
Here are the CREATE TABLE statements for this question:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[History](
[HistoryId] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL,
[RelatedItemId] [uniqueidentifier] NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_History] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [HistoryId] ASC )
)
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Messages](
[MessageId] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Messages] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [MessageId] ASC )
)
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Drafts](
[DraftId] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Drafts] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [DraftId] ASC )
)
In a short description the solution you have used is called:
Polymorphic Association
Objective: Reference Multiple Parents
Resulting anti-pattern: Use dual-purpose foreign key, violating first normal form (atomic issue), loosing referential integrity
Solution: Simplify the Relationship
More information about the problem.
BTW createing a common super-table will help you:
Is there a name for this relationship?
There is no standard name that I'm aware of, but I've heard people using the term "generic FKs" or even "inner-platform effect".
Is it just bad design?
Yes.
The reason: it prevents you from declaring a FOREIGN KEY, and therefore prevents the DBMS from enforcing referential integrity directly. Therefore you must enforce it trough imperative code, which is surprisingly difficult.
Is there a better way to design this relationship?
Yes.
Create separate FOREIGN KEY for each referenced table. Make them NULL-able, but make sure exactly one of them is non-NULL, through a CHECK constraint.
Alternatively, take a look at inheritance.
Best practice I have found is to create a Function that returns whether the passed in value exists in either of your Messages and Drafts PK columns. You can then add a constraint on the column on the History that calls this function and will only insert if it passes (i.e. it exists).
Adding non-parsed example Code:
CREATE FUNCTION is_related_there (
IN #value uniqueidentifier )
RETURNS TINYINT
BEGIN
IF (select count(DraftId) from Drafts where DraftId = #value + select count(MessageId) from Messages where MessageId = #value) > 0 THEN
RETURN 1;
ELSE
RETURN 0;
END IF;
END;
ALTER TABLE History ADD CONSTRAINT
CK_HistoryExists CHECK (is_related_there (RelatedItemId) = 1)
Hope that runs and helps lol
I would like to know how to use trim function when declaring primary key in db2.
For example, in table Employee(name,id) how to restrict the usage of these two insert statements:
insert into Employee(name,id) values (jay,1);
insert into Employee(name,id) values (jay,1);
In the above statements both name and id are primary keys.
maybe you mean unique? if so, well you can easily solve this problem, all you have to do, is to create a primary key on bouth fields ;-)
something like this:
alter table Employee add constraint Employee_pk primary key (name, id)
Can I define a primary key according to three attributes? I am using Visual Paradigm and Postgres.
CREATE TABLE answers (
time SERIAL NOT NULL,
"{Users}{userID}user_id" int4 NOT NULL,
"{Users}{userID}question_id" int4 NOT NULL,
reply varchar(255),
PRIMARY KEY (time, "{Users}{userID}user_id", "{Users}{userID}question_id"));
A picture may clarify the question.
Yes you can, just as you showed.(though I question your naming of the 2. and 3. column.)
From the docs:
"Primary keys can also constrain more than one column; the syntax is similar to unique constraints:
CREATE TABLE example (
a integer,
b integer,
c integer,
PRIMARY KEY (a, c)
);
A primary key indicates that a column or group of columns can be used as a unique identifier for rows in the table. (This is a direct consequence of the definition of a primary key. Note that a unique constraint does not, by itself, provide a unique identifier because it does not exclude null values.) This is useful both for documentation purposes and for client applications. For example, a GUI application that allows modifying row values probably needs to know the primary key of a table to be able to identify rows uniquely.
A table can have at most one primary key (while it can have many unique and not-null constraints). Relational database theory dictates that every table must have a primary key. This rule is not enforced by PostgreSQL, but it is usually best to follow it.
"
Yes, you can. There is just such an example in the documentation.. However, I'm not familiar with the bracketed terms you're using. Are you doing some variable evaluation before creating the database schema?
yes you can
if you'd run it - you would see it in no time.
i would really, really, really suggest to rethink naming convention. time column that contains serial integer? column names like "{Users}{userID}user_id"? oh my.