When creating a table in PostgreSQL, default constraint names will assigned if not provided:
CREATE TABLE example (
a integer,
b integer,
UNIQUE (a, b)
);
But using ALTER TABLE to add a constraint it seems a name is mandatory:
ALTER TABLE example ADD CONSTRAINT my_explicit_constraint_name UNIQUE (a, b);
This has caused some naming inconsistencies on projects I've worked on, and prompts the following questions:
Is there a simple way to add a constraint to an extant table with the name it would have received if added during table creation?
If not, should default names be avoided altogether to prevent inconsistencies?
The standard names for indexes in PostgreSQL are:
{tablename}_{columnname(s)}_{suffix}
where the suffix is one of the following:
pkey for a Primary Key constraint
key for a Unique constraint
excl for an Exclusion constraint
idx for any other kind of index
fkey for a Foreign key
check for a Check constraint
Standard suffix for sequences is
seq for all sequences
Proof of your UNIQUE-constraint:
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / UNIQUE will
create implicit index
"example_a_b_key" for table "example"
The manual is pretty clear about this ("tableconstraint: This form adds a new constraint to a table using the same syntax as CREATE TABLE.")
So you can simply run:
ALTER TABLE example ADD UNIQUE (a, b);
Related
This question already has an answer here:
ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must include all partitioning columns
(1 answer)
Closed last month.
I'm trying to create a partitioned table which refers to itself, creating a doubly-linked list.
CREATE TABLE test2 (
id serial NOT NULL,
category integer NOT NULL,
time timestamp(6) NOT NULL,
prev_event integer,
next_event integer
) PARTITION BY HASH (category);
Once I add primary key I get the following error.
alter table test2 add primary key (id);
ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must include all partitioning columns
DETAIL: PRIMARY KEY constraint on table "test2" lacks column "category" which is part of the partition key.
Why does the unique constrain require all partitioned columns to be included?
EDIT: Now I understand why this is needed: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-partitioning.html#DDL-PARTITIONING-DECLARATIVE-LIMITATIONS
Once I add PK with both columns it works.
alter table test2 add primary key (id, category);
But then adding the FK to itself doesn't work.
alter table test2 add foreign key (prev_event) references test2 (id) on update cascade on delete cascade;
ERROR: there is no unique constraint matching given keys for referenced table "test2"
Since PK is not just id but id-category I can't create FK pointing to id.
Is there any way to deal with this or am I missing something?
I would like to avoid using inheritance partitioning if possible.
EDIT2: It seems this is a known problem. https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/di5mbr/postgresql_12_foreign_keys_and_partitioned_tables/f3tsoop/
Seems that there is no straightforward solution. PostgreSQL simply doesn't support this as of v14. One solution is to use triggers to enforce 'foreign key' behavior. Other is to use multi-column foreign keys. Both are far from optimal.
Trying to create this example table structure in Postgres 9.1:
CREATE TABLE foo (
name VARCHAR(256) PRIMARY KEY
);
CREATE TABLE bar (
pkey SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
foo_fk VARCHAR(256) NOT NULL REFERENCES foo(name),
name VARCHAR(256) NOT NULL,
UNIQUE (foo_fk,name)
);
CREATE TABLE baz(
pkey SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
bar_fk VARCHAR(256) NOT NULL REFERENCES bar(name),
name VARCHAR(256)
);
Running the above code produces an error, which does not make sense to me:
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "foo_pkey" for table "foo"
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "bar_pkey_seq" for serial column "bar.pkey"
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "bar_pkey" for table "bar"
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / UNIQUE will create implicit index "bar_foo_fk_name_key" for table "bar"
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "baz_pkey_seq" for serial column "baz.pkey"
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "baz_pkey" for table "baz"
ERROR: there is no unique constraint matching given keys for referenced table "bar"
********** Error **********
ERROR: there is no unique constraint matching given keys for referenced table "bar"
SQL state: 42830
Can anyone explain why this error arises?
It's because the name column on the bar table does not have the UNIQUE constraint.
So imagine you have 2 rows on the bar table that contain the name 'ams' and you insert a row on baz with 'ams' on bar_fk, which row on bar would it be referring since there are two rows matching?
In postgresql all foreign keys must reference a unique key in the parent table, so in your bar table you must have a unique (name) index.
See also http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/ddl-constraints.html#DDL-CONSTRAINTS-FK and specifically:
Finally, we should mention that a foreign key must reference columns
that either are a primary key or form a unique constraint.
Emphasis mine.
You should have name column as a unique constraint. here is a 3 lines of code to change your issues
First find out the primary key constraints by typing this code
\d table_name
you are shown like this at bottom "some_constraint" PRIMARY KEY, btree (column)
Drop the constraint:
ALTER TABLE table_name DROP CONSTRAINT some_constraint
Add a new primary key column with existing one:
ALTER TABLE table_name ADD CONSTRAINT some_constraint PRIMARY KEY(COLUMN_NAME1,COLUMN_NAME2);
That's All.
when you do UNIQUE as a table level constraint as you have done then what your defining is a bit like a composite primary key see ddl constraints, here is an extract
This specifies that the combination of values in the indicated columns is unique across the whole table, though any one of the columns need not be (and ordinarily isn't) unique.
this means that either field could possibly have a non unique value provided the combination is unique and this does not match your foreign key constraint.
most likely you want the constraint to be at column level. so rather then define them as table level constraints, 'append' UNIQUE to the end of the column definition like name VARCHAR(60) NOT NULL UNIQUE or specify indivdual table level constraints for each field.
Trying to create this example table structure in Postgres 9.1:
CREATE TABLE foo (
name VARCHAR(256) PRIMARY KEY
);
CREATE TABLE bar (
pkey SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
foo_fk VARCHAR(256) NOT NULL REFERENCES foo(name),
name VARCHAR(256) NOT NULL,
UNIQUE (foo_fk,name)
);
CREATE TABLE baz(
pkey SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
bar_fk VARCHAR(256) NOT NULL REFERENCES bar(name),
name VARCHAR(256)
);
Running the above code produces an error, which does not make sense to me:
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "foo_pkey" for table "foo"
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "bar_pkey_seq" for serial column "bar.pkey"
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "bar_pkey" for table "bar"
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / UNIQUE will create implicit index "bar_foo_fk_name_key" for table "bar"
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "baz_pkey_seq" for serial column "baz.pkey"
NOTICE: CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "baz_pkey" for table "baz"
ERROR: there is no unique constraint matching given keys for referenced table "bar"
********** Error **********
ERROR: there is no unique constraint matching given keys for referenced table "bar"
SQL state: 42830
Can anyone explain why this error arises?
It's because the name column on the bar table does not have the UNIQUE constraint.
So imagine you have 2 rows on the bar table that contain the name 'ams' and you insert a row on baz with 'ams' on bar_fk, which row on bar would it be referring since there are two rows matching?
In postgresql all foreign keys must reference a unique key in the parent table, so in your bar table you must have a unique (name) index.
See also http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/ddl-constraints.html#DDL-CONSTRAINTS-FK and specifically:
Finally, we should mention that a foreign key must reference columns
that either are a primary key or form a unique constraint.
Emphasis mine.
You should have name column as a unique constraint. here is a 3 lines of code to change your issues
First find out the primary key constraints by typing this code
\d table_name
you are shown like this at bottom "some_constraint" PRIMARY KEY, btree (column)
Drop the constraint:
ALTER TABLE table_name DROP CONSTRAINT some_constraint
Add a new primary key column with existing one:
ALTER TABLE table_name ADD CONSTRAINT some_constraint PRIMARY KEY(COLUMN_NAME1,COLUMN_NAME2);
That's All.
when you do UNIQUE as a table level constraint as you have done then what your defining is a bit like a composite primary key see ddl constraints, here is an extract
This specifies that the combination of values in the indicated columns is unique across the whole table, though any one of the columns need not be (and ordinarily isn't) unique.
this means that either field could possibly have a non unique value provided the combination is unique and this does not match your foreign key constraint.
most likely you want the constraint to be at column level. so rather then define them as table level constraints, 'append' UNIQUE to the end of the column definition like name VARCHAR(60) NOT NULL UNIQUE or specify indivdual table level constraints for each field.
Having experience with Oracle I assumed that each unique constraint would reuse unique index.
I created schema population script that creates named unique index and then same unique constraint. In that way I hoped to set index name explicitly rather than relay on Postgres default naming schema.
As experiment was shown I got two indexes with same definition in a result:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX agent_ux ON agent (branch_id, initials);
ALTER TABLE agent ADD CONSTRAINT agent_uk UNIQUE (branch_id, initials);
select indexname from pg_indexes where tablename = 'agent';
agent_ux
agent_uk
Doesn't Postgres reuse unique indexes for unique key constraint?
NOTE I can't drop index, corresponding to unique constraint (error says about related constraint), but index is automatically deleted if I delete constraint.
In postgres, creating a UNIQUE constraint automatically creates an index. You can also create the constraint by promoting an existing index, using the ALTER TABLE ttt add constraint ccc USING xxx syntax: Documentation
ALTER TABLE agent
ADD CONSTRAINT agent_uk UNIQUE USING agent_ux;
[untested]
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