I'm currenty working with Core-data for an iPhone project.
But I'm a bit confused about one element.
With Core Data currently you do not need to create the intermediate table when creating many to many relationships (its all handled behind the scenes by core data)
But in my case I actually need some attributes on my many to many relationship!
For example
I have a table called Students
and another table called Lessons
a Student can be in many lessons
and a lesson can have many students
Now a standard many to many relationship will not work for me as I actually need to define more details on the join, i.e. StartDate and LeaveDate.
In a standard sql model for example my join table would be something like
StudentLessons (Studentid, LessonId, StartDate, LeaveDate )
I would need these properties as when i'm querying for information I will need the details from the join to filter my results.
How can I create this in core data and also filter for results?
I've seen folks say that you would actually create the StudentLesson entity manually in core data.
Now if I did this would I just have the attributes (Startdate, LeaveDate) and then a one to many relationship from the Student and then the Lessons table?
Student - > StudentLessons
Lesson - > StudentLessons
I guess I'm a bit confused on how I would go about making sure that the relationships and the content of the relationships are setup correctly. (i.e If I add an Student object to the StudentLessons - how would I then assign/add the Lesson.)
Sorry this is my first time playing with Core Data.
Takes a bit o getting used to when coming from a full on sql background.
You are absolutely right. The correct way to do this is to create a new entity like StudentLessons. Let's call it Attendance. It should have the startDate and endDate, and two relationships.
The relationship to the student can be many-to-many, unless it is foreseeable that startDate and endDate are always different for each student. One Attendance with its dates can have many students in it. One student can have several Attendance duties.
Student <<---->> Attendance
Clearly, the relationship to Lesson should be one-to-many. One Lesson can have different Attendance configurations, with different dates. But each Attendance belongs only to one Lesson.
Lesson <---->> Attendance
To address your question, you can make the Attendance attribute of Lesson non-optional (and vice versa), this way it will ensure that each Lesson has at least one Attendance with appropriate dates, and each Attendance has exactly one Lesson.
I think your can remove the link between Student and Lesson. Just assign an Attendance rather than a lesson. If you want a Lesson assigned to a Student without dates, just allow Attendance to have NULL as those properties.
TheTiger,
Just because Core Data will create a join table for you, that doesn't mean you have to use it. Maintaining which student succeeds with which lesson is just the same except you will create the intermediate entity and then use the appropriate setters to build the relationships.
You will have to use more key paths and do relationship prefetching but those are straightforward to do.
Andrew
Related
I am trying to do a simple UML model about a car dealership.
The company has at least one store where in each they sell at least one type of a car. Each store has a name and each car has a name, type, and price. Each outlet also keeps stock of every car they sell.
I have outlined the idea in this image:
In addition to this, after every day, the number of cars sold gets recorded into a database. How would I add this to the model? Also, is there a better way to model the amount of cars in stock than to have it as a separate class? If there is a better diagram to model this type of scenario with I'd also be interested.
Thanks for any help!
There are many ways to model sales records. The simplest and most common is to have a sales ledger. It creates sales entries for items. The item is a separate (association) class that records the number of sold items, the price paid, the sales date, the sales person, and more. Pretty simple and straight forwards, until you get to the gory details. Ask your next dealer...
You can model a sales record as a separate class. Let's call it DaySales. Each day, you have a new instance of DaySales, containing the date and the amount of cars sold. I have given attribute date the data type 'String', because UML does not define a Date type. But if you define it yourself, you could better use Date than String.
I have removed the association between Car and Outlet, because it is already implicitly defined via Stock, but you can keep it as a redundant association, if you like.
I have altered the multiplicity of the association between Car and Stock, because there will be multiple cars in stock.
I'm having a little trouble grasping CoreData relationships, i'm note sure which relationship type I should be using between my 2 entities or if my logic is correct.
1) "Person" Entity - attributes such as name, tel, address, country, etc...
2) "CountryList" - attributes such as countryName, countryLat, countryLong, etc..
The CountryList entity is pre populated on first run of the app to include all the countries in the world and their respected data.
Where i'm stuck is do I need a relationship between these two entities?
I will be allowing the user to select a country from the CountryList entity data and wish to store there selection in the country attribute for Person entity.
Do I just take the countryName from CountryList as a string and store it in country from Person? or can I make a relationship between them?
I know a user can only belong to 1 country but a country can have lots of users so is this a one to many relationship? Or is it many to many because lots of users can belong to a country but a country can have loads of users? Confused!
Could someone please enlighten me on this and point me in the right direction in what i should be doing in xcode.
Many Thanks in Advance
Matt
EDIT: Is this correct?
I have made the changes to Entity names etc and think I now have the relationship set correctly.
EDIT 2: Removed country attribute and renamed relationships
Firstly, your "CountryList" entity should be called "Country", since it represents only one country. The fact that you have many of those countries has nothing to do with its name.
After that, it seems just natural to use a relationship, one "Person" has one "Country", but one country can have many persons. Therefore, one-to-many relationship. Using a relationship will simplify many operations you might want to perform (i.e. access all the country information of one person, or get a list of all persons being in one particular country).
Oh, and this might help you understand relationships a bit better: There are no "many-to-many" relationships in CoreData per se. You always define a relation from a source to a target. So if you define a relation from Country to Person, this will be a one-to-many relationship. One country, many persons. You can then define a relationship from Person to Country, which would be a one-to-one relationship. One person, one country. If you defined this as an one-to-many relationship, you would end up with a de facto many-to-many relationship (because on person can have many countries and one country can have many persons). It's not as complex as it appears.
Now, after you've defined your two relationships, you can set them as each others "Inverse Relationship". Do it for one of the relationships, the other one will be set automatically. After you did that, CoreData will for example update a Person's country when you add the person to the country's list.
See https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CoreData/Articles/cdRelationships.html for further information.
CountryList should just be Country
Then you set a 'many to one' relationship between Person.county and Country
You are using Core Data so you must define relationship between Person and Country if you want to fetch person's country from database.
And in this relationship you may take one to one relationship. As One person will belong to one country only. Of Course a country will have many person but unless you want to show all people related to particular country you do not need one to many relationship..
In case you want to implement one to many relationship this tutorial link maybe helpful to you for understanding one to many relationship..
http://www.theappcodeblog.com/2011/09/29/iphone-app-development-tutorial-core-data-part-2-one-to-many-relationship/
Say I'm modeling a school, so I have 2 Entities: Student and Class. For whatever reason, I want each class roster to have a custom sort order. In a simple relationship, this would mean giving Student a sortOrder attribute and just sorting the list by this number. Issue is, a Student might be order 3 in one Class and order 6 in another. How would I store these orderings in Core Data in a way that I can easily access them and sort my lists properly?
Student Class
classes <<--------->> students
^ ^
| |
unordered ordered
This diagram might help explain what I'm trying to do. The students "roster" I would want to be fetched in a specific order stored somewhere, which could be any ordering. Storing this ordering is what I'm not sure how to do in a way that's the most efficient. Creating a bunch of Order objects and trying to manage the links sounds like a lot of overhead, and it feels like there must be a better way.
If the ordering of students can be described by one or more NSSortDescriptors, you could create a fetched property on the Class entity that fetches the students and applies the sort descriptor. Alternatively, it may be easier (depending on your use case) to apply the sort descriptor(s) to the NSFetchedResultsController that you're using to deal with the class' students collection.
If you can't use an NSSortDescriptor, then you'll need an index attribute (or name of your choice) on the Student entity if there's only one ordering or a collection of Order entities describing the index in each ordering for each Student. You'll be responsible for maintaing these index values. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to do this in Core Data. It's just a lot of work.
Student <<->> StudentClass <<->> Class
StudentClass
----
studentID
order
classID
Then you can select as necessary.
For example, you have a student. Fetch all StudentClass where StudentID is student.studentID. You then have the order, as well as access to the Class.
You'll likely want to add some business logic to make your life easier. Also, if you're not already using it, take a peek at MOGenerator: https://github.com/rentzsch/mogenerator
EDIT: I'd really like to know why this is getting voted down. Comments would be much appreciated.
I'm having trouble configuring entity relationships when one entity inherits from another. I'm new to ADO Entity Framework -- perhaps someone more experienced has some tips for how this is best done. I'm using .net 4.
Database tables with fields:
Products (int ID, nvarchar Description)
FoodProducts (int ProductID, bit IsHuge)
Flavors (int ID, int FoodProductID, nvarchar Description)
There are constraints between Products and FoodProducts as well as FoodProducts and Flavors.
Using the designer I create a model from the database. The designer seems to get it right, with a 1:0..1 association between Product and FoodProduct entities, and 1:* association between Flavor and FoodProduct. No errors when I save or build.
Next I set FoodProduct entity to inherit from Product entity. Then I get errors concerning relationship between Product and FoodProduct. Ok, starting fresh, I first delete the relationship between Product and FoodProduct before setting the inheritance. But now I get errors about the relationship between FoodProduct and Flavor. So I delete and then recreate that relationship, connecting Flavor.ID to FoodProduct.ProductID. Now I get other errors.
My question is this: Should I instead be creating relationship between Flavor.FoodProductID and Product.ID? If so, I assume I then could (or should) delete the FoodProduct.ProductID property. Since my database will have many of these types of relationships, am I better off first creating the entity model and exporting the tables to SQL, or importing the database schema and then making many tweaks?
My intent is that there will be several types of products, some of which require many additional fields, some of which do not. So there may be zero or one FoodProducts records associated with each Product record. At least by my thinking, the table for each sub-type (FoodProducts) should be able to "borrow" the primary key from Products (as a FK) to uniquely identify each of its records.
You can find a screen capture here: http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9720/entityframework.jpg (I'd embed the img but haven't earned the requisite rep' yet!)
Well, I deleted the FoodProduct.ProductID field, as it should always return the same value as Product.ID anyway. Then, as you hinted, I had to manually map the Products.ID field to FoodProducts.ProductID field. Errors resolved. I'll write a little code to test functionality. Thanks for the "observations"!
Couple of observations:
FoodProducts needs a primary key (e,g identity - FoodProductID). Are you sure it should be a 1:0..1 between Food and FoodProducts? I would have thought it should be 1:0..*. For this cardinality to work you need a unique PK on this table.
When you setup inheritance for entities, the parent entity's properties are inherited. So FoodProducts will inherit ID from the Product table.
BUT, on the physical model (database), this field still needs to be mapped to a column on the FoodProducts table - which is why you need the identity field.
After you setup inheritance, you still need to map all the columns on the derived tables. My money is on you have not mapped "ID" on FoodProducts to any column.
If you screencapped your model and show the errors you are getting it would be much easier to diagnose the issue.
Please help an EF n00b design his database.
I have several companies that produce several products, so there's a many-to-many relationship between companies and products. I have an intermediate table, Company_Product, that relates them.
Each company/product combination has a unique SKU. For example Acme widgets have SKU 123, but Omega widgets have SKU 456. I added the SKU as a field in the Company_Product intermediate table.
EF generated a model with a 1:* relationship between the company and Company_Product tables, and a 1:* relationship between the product and Company_Product tables. I really want a : relationship between company and product. But, most importantly, there's no way to access the SKU directly from the model.
Do I need to put the SKU in its own table and write a join, or is there a better way?
I just tested this in a new VS2010 project (EFv4) to be sure, and here's what I found:
When your associative table in the middle (Company_Product) has ONLY the 2 foreign keys to the other tables (CompanyID and ProductID), then adding all 3 tables to the designer ends up modeling the many to many relationship. It doesn't even generate a class for the Company_Product table. Each Company has a Products collection, and each Product has a Companies collection.
However, if your associative table (Company_Product) has other fields (such as SKU, it's own Primary Key, or other descriptive fields like dates, descriptions, etc), then the EF modeler will create a separate class, and it does what you've already seen.
Having the class in the middle with 1:* relationships out to Company and Product is not a bad thing, and you can still get the data you want with some easy queries.
// Get all products for Company with ID = 1
var q =
from compProd in context.Company_Product
where compProd.CompanyID == 1
select compProd.Product;
True, it's not as easy to just navigate the relationships of the model, when you already have your entity objects loaded, for instance, but that's what a data layer is for. Encapsulate the queries that get the data you want. If you really want to get rid of that middle Company_Product class, and have the many-to-many directly represented in the class model, then you'll have to strip down the Company_Product table to contain only the 2 foreign keys, and get rid of the SKU.
Actually, I shouldn't say you HAVE to do that...you might be able to do some edits in the designer and set it up this way anyway. I'll give it a try and report back.
UPDATE
Keeping the SKU in the Company_Product table (meaning my EF model had 3 classes, not 2; it created the Company_Payload class, with a 1:* to the other 2 tables), I tried to add an association directly between Company and Product. The steps I followed were:
Right click on the Company class in the designer
Add > Association
Set "End" on the left to be Company (it should be already)
Set "End" on the right to Product
Change both multiplicities to "* (Many)"
The navigation properties should be named "Products" and "Companies"
Hit OK.
Right Click on the association in the model > click "Table Mapping"
Under "Add a table or view" select "Company_Product"
Map Company -> ID (on left) to CompanyID (on right)
Map Product -> ID (on left) to ProductID (on right)
But, it doesn't work. It gives this error:
Error 3025: Problem in mapping fragments starting at line 175:Must specify mapping for all key properties (Company_Product.SKU) of table Company_Product.
So that particular association is invalid, because it uses Company_Product as the table, but doesn't map the SKU field to anything.
Also, while I was researching this, I came across this "Best Practice" tidbit from the book Entity Framework 4.0 Recipies (note that for an association table with extra fields, besides to 2 FKs, they refer to the extra fields as the "payload". In your case, SKU is the payload in Company_Product).
Best Practice
Unfortunately, a project
that starts out with several,
payload-free, many-to-many
relationships often ends up with
several, payload-rich, many-to-many
relationships. Refactoring a model,
especially late in the development
cycle, to accommodate payloads in the
many-to-many relationships can be
tedious. Not only are additional
entities introduced, but the queries
and navigation patterns through the
relationships change as well. Some
developers argue that every
many-to-many relationship should start
off with some payload, typically a
synthetic key, so the inevitable
addition of more payload has
significantly less impact on the
project.
So here's the best practice.
If you have a payload-free,
many-to-many relationship and you
think there is some chance that it may
change over time to include a payload,
start with an extra identity column in
the link table. When you import the
tables into your model, you will get
two one-to-many relationships, which
means the code you write and the model
you have will be ready for any number
of additional payload columns that
come along as the project matures. The
cost of an additional integer identity
column is usually a pretty small price
to pay to keep the model more
flexible.
(From Chapter 2. Entity Data Modeling Fundamentals, 2.4. Modeling a Many-to-Many Relationship with a Payload)
Sounds like good advice. Especially since you already have a payload (SKU).
I would just like to add the following to Samuel's answer:
If you want to directly query from one side of a many-to-many relationship (with payload) to the other, you can use the following code (using the same example):
Company c = context.Companies.First();
IQueryable<Product> products = c.Company_Products.Select(cp => cp.Product);
The products variable would then be all Product records associated with the Company c record. If you would like to include the SKU for each of the products, you could use an anonymous class like so:
var productsWithSKU = c.Company_Products.Select(cp => new {
ProductID = cp.Product.ID,
Name = cp.Product.Name,
Price = cp.Product.Price,
SKU = cp.SKU
});
foreach (var
You can encapsulate the first query in a read-only property for simplicity like so:
public partial class Company
{
public property IQueryable<Product> Products
{
get { return Company_Products.Select(cp => cp.Product); }
}
}
You can't do that with the query that includes the SKU because you can't return anonymous types. You would have to have a definite class, which would typically be done by either adding a non-mapped property to the Product class or creating another class that inherits from Product that would add an SKU property. If you use an inherited class though, you will not be able to make changes to it and have it managed by EF - it would only be useful for display purposes.
Cheers. :)