I am trying to use Entity Framework DB first to do quick prototyping of a reporting website for a huge db. The problem is one of the tables doesn't have a key. I got an 'Error 159: EntityType has no key defined'. If I add a key on the model designer, I got 'Error 3024: Must specify mapping for all key properties'. My question is whether there is a way to workaround this WITHOUT adding a key to the table. The table is not in our control.
Huge table which does not have a key? It would not be possible for you or for table owner to search for anything in this table without using full table scan. Also, it is basically impossible to use UPDATE by single row without having primary key.
You really have to either create synthetic key, or ask owner to do that. As a workaround, you might be able to find some existing column (or 2-3 columns) which is unique enough that it can be used as unique key. If it is unique but does not have actual index created, that would be still not good for performance - you should create such index.
Related
I am trying to populate some tables using data that I extracted from Google BigQuery. For that purpose I essentially normalized a flattened table into multiple tables that include the primary key of each row in the multiple tables. The important point is that I need to load those primary keys in order to satisfy foreign key references.
Having inserted this data into tables, I then try to add new rows to these tables. I don't specify the primary key, presuming that Postgres will auto-generate those key values.
However, I always get a 'duplicate key value violates unique constraint "xxx_pkey" ' type error, e.g.
"..duplicate key value violates unique constraint "collection_pkey" DETAIL: Key (id)=(1) already exists.
It seems this is triggered by including the primary key in the data when initializing table. That is, explicitly setting primary keys, somehow seems to disable or reset the expected autogeneration of the primary key. I.E. I was expecting that new rows would be assigned primary keys starting from the highest value already in a table.
Interestingly I get the same error whether I try to add a row via SQLAlchemy or from the psql console.
So, is this as expected? And if so, is there some way to get the system to again auto-generate keys? There must be some hidden psql state that controls this...the schema is unchanged by directly inserting keys, but psql behavior is changed by that action.
I am happy to provide additional information.
Thanks
Can I do row-specific update / delete operations in a DB2 table Via SQL, in a NON QUNIQUE Primary Key Context?
The Table is a PHYSICAL FILE on the NATIVE SYSTEM of the AS/400.
It was, like many other Files, created without the unique definition, which leads DB2 to the conclusion, that The Table, or PF has no qunique Key.
And that's my problem. I can't override the structure of the table to insert a unique ID ROW, because, I would have to recompile ALL my correlating Programs on the AS/400, which is a serious issue, much things would not work anymore, "perhaps". Of course, I can do that refactoring for one table, but our system has thousands of those native FILES, some well done with Unique Key, some without Unique definition...
Well, I work most of the time with db2 and sql on that old files. And all files which have a UNIQUE Key are no problem for me to do those important update / delete operations.
Is there some way to get an additional column to every select with a very unique row id, respective row number. And in addition, what is much more important, how can I update this RowNumber.
I did some research and meanwhile I assume, that there is no chance to do exact alterations or deletes, when there is no unique key present. What I would wish would be some additional ID-ROW which is always been sent with the table, which I can Refer to when I do my update / delete operations. Perhaps my thinking here has an fallacy as non Unique Key Tables are purposed to be edited in other ways.
Try the RRN function.
SELECT RRN(EMPLOYEE), LASTNAME
FROM EMPLOYEE
WHERE ...;
UPDATE EMPLOYEE
SET ...
WHERE RRN(EMPLOYEE) = ...;
I'm new to DBIC. I've imported data into a database. It's not possible to create relationships between the tables because, apparently, not all the values in the child table's foreign key column have a corresponding value in the parent table.
So is it possible to still do joins between the tables? I've skimmed through the tutorial and documentation but found nothing that addresses this problem.
You can of course define relationships in your DBIC schema that don't have a matching constraint in the database.
If you use $schema->deploy it will automatically generate constraints for all foreign key columns.
On https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10356484/how-to-add-on-delete-cascade-constraints#= a user, kgrittn, commented saying that
But I notice that you have not created indexes on referencing columns... Deletes on the referenced table will take a long time without those, if you get many rows in those tables. Some databases automatically create an index on the referencing column(s); PostgreSQL leaves that up to you, since there are some cases where it isn't worthwhile.
I'm having difficulty understanding this completely. Is he saying that primary keys are not created automatically with an index or is he saying that foreign keys should be indexed (in particular cases that is). I've looked at the PostgreSQL documentation and it appears from there that an index is created for primary keys automatically. Is there a command I can use to list all indexes?
Thanks
A primary key is behind the scenes a special kind of a unique index. The quote referencing, that it might be a good idea to create an index also on columns, where the primary key is used as an foreign key.
I am using SQL Server 2012 and I want to create a "changes" table - it will be populated with data from other table when the second table columns values are changed.
I am adding to the "changes" table "datatime2", and "rowversion" columns in order to track when the changes are made.
Is it ok to use "rowversion" as primary key?
I have read here that it will be changed, if the current row is updated and that's why it is not a good candidate for "primary key" making foreign keys invalid.
Anyway, if it won't be used as a foreign key and the rows of "changes" table will never be updated (only new rows will be inserted) is it ok to use the "rowversion" as PK or I should use additional column?
Some good info here:
Careful reading of the MSDN page also shows that duplicate rowversion values are possible if SELECT INTO statements are used improperly. Something to watch out for there.
I would stick with an Identity field in the original data, carried over into the change tracking table that has its own Identity field.