I designed an entity data model with two entities between which there exists a many to many relationship. When I auto-generate SQL code to generate the database for this model, it has generated a table (two columns) to keep track of this many-to-many association. However, this table has a PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED on both columns.
Since I want this to work on SQL Azure which doesn't like tables with only nonclustered indices, I was wondering whether there is a good way of telling the code generation to generate clustered indices? Thanks!
I have another file called Model.indexes.sql that contains scripts to create additional indexes beyond the basic ones EF generates, such as those for performance optimizations.
Although this is not ideal, I added into this an index drop and create for each EF association to convert the Non-Clustered indexes into indexed ones:
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[MyAssociation]
DROP CONSTRAINT [PK_MyAssociation]
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[MyAssociation]
ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_MyAssociation]
PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([Table1_Id], [Table2_Id] ASC);
GO
This is executed after every "Generate Database from Model...". I would love a more elegant solution.
Related
I'm writing a program that generates large numbers of rows to be inserted into a PostgreSQL database. Due to the presence of multiple indices, this process is getting slower over time. That's why I want to move to using COPY which seems to be significantly faster. The problem is that one of the tables has a foreign key into another, and I do not have the IDs for the foreign key column.
I was thinking that maybe if I could reserve a range in the sequence used for the primary key of the first table, I could do the ID assignment manually but I don't think Postgres natively supports such an operation. Is there a way to achieve this another way?
First off from your source data identify the business key for the parent and child tables. Create those tables and a unique constraint business key. This will not be the surrogate - auto generated - PK. Now create a staging table with all the columns necessary (except the FK). Since you will most likely be using across sessions this is a permanent table, but the intent is single time usage. With this insert into the parent table generating the pk from the sequence. Then insert into the child selecting the FK by referencing the business key from the parent.
insert into parent( <columns> )
select column_list
from stage
on conflict (business key ) do nothing;
insert into child ( <columns>, )
select s.<columns>, a.id
from stage s
join parent a on s.business key = a.business key
on conflict (a.parent_id, child_bk) do nothing;
Since the above is rather obscure in the abstract see a concrete example here. There is no need attempting to "reserve a range", just let the pk/fk develop naturally.
Should i use indexes and foreignKey in slick schema table? Is there any benefits like performance or query planner?
We are using Flyway DB migration tool so we wont use this schema with schema.create
Foreign keys in slick schema table would help you in two cases
first is from slick doc
...foreign key can be used to navigate to the referenced data with a join. For this purpose, it behaves the same as a manually defined utility method for finding the joined data ...
And if you generate DB schema using slick (for example, in tests)
Setting up indexes help you to fasten your searching(data retrieval), but slows down insertion. So you need to decide according to your requirement what you want. If there is more searching and data in DB is huge you should go for indexing.
Foreign keys, on the other hand, are used to maintain the relationship between different tables which are used for join in relational DB. Adding foreign keys will not have any impact on performance.
You can get more insight on indexing here -> Indexing,
And for foreign key here -> Foreign Key
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.
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.
This is kind of a general DB design question. If one has an associative entity table, i.e. a cross-reference, containing records that basically just consist of two FK references, should it be indexed in some way? Is it necessary to explicitly index that table, since the PKs in the associated tables are already indexed by definition? If one should index it, should it be a combination index, consisting of the two FK fields together?
Indexes on the referenced pk columns in the other tables do not cover it.
By defining the two fk columns as composite primary key of the "associative entity" table (as you should in most cases - provided that associations are unique), you implicitly create a multi-column index.
That covers all queries involving both or the first columns optimally.
It also covers queries on the second column, but in a less effective way.
If you have important queries involving just the second column, create an additional index on that one, too.
Read all the details about the topic at this related question on dba.SE.
Or this question on SO, also covering this topic.
Suppose your associative table has a schema such as:
CREATE TABLE Association
(
ReferenceA INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES TableA CONSTRAINT FK1_Association,
ReferenceB INTEGER NOT NULL REFERENCES TableB CONSTRAINT FK2_Association,
PRIMARY KEY(ReferenceA, ReferenceB) CONSTRAINT PK_Association
);
The chances are that your DBMS will automatically create some indexes.
Some DBMS will create an index for each of the two foreign keys and also a unique index for the primary key. This is slightly wasteful since the PK index could be used for accessing ReferenceA too.
Ideally, there will be just two indexes: the PK (unique) index and the (duplicates allowed) FK index for ReferenceB, assuming that the PK index has ReferenceA as the first column.
If a DBMS does not automatically create indexes to enforce the referential integrity constraints, you'll want to create the RI or FK duplicates-allowed index. If it doesn't automatically create an index to enforce the PK constraint, you'll want to create that unique index too. The upside is that you'll only create the indexes for the ideal case.
Depending on your DBMS, you might find it more effective to create the table without the constraints, then to add the indexes, and then to add the constraints (which will then use the indexes you created). Things like fragmentation schemes can also factor into this; I ignored them above.
The concept remains simple — you want two indexes in total, one to enforce uniqueness on both columns and provide fast access on the leading column, and a non-unique or duplicates-allowed index on the trailing column.