I have 2 tables in sql server with primary keys set to identity. They are related and work fine.
I then created a form in vb 2008 and tried inserting some values into my database the respective primary keys work but the primary key in the parent table wont show up in the child table.I did create a relationship in vb using ado.net and all the details of my table are defineed in the data table. For example
cust tables (custid,name,..)
book table(bookid,bookname,..,custid)
in vb my insert statement is something like Insert into cust(name) values(#name)
insert into book(bookname) values(#bookname). I do not include the id columns as they auto generate in the database(tables).
My question is that how do i get to insert the custid in the book table when the data is stored back into the tavles in my database.
Please advice with an example as im not half as good as you guys.
Kind Regards
You have to know which customer you want to associate with the book before INSERTing the book. If you don't know before hand, you can't. So somewhere in your Form there should be a way to select a customer. Then when you create a book, you grab that customer's ID and insert it along with the other book info.
You don't actually say that you created a foreign key constraint between the two tables!
You need to:
Ensure that you create an explicit foreign key on the BOOK table to point to a customer in the CUST table.
First insert the customer.
Then find out what the customer's auto-generated ID was. That value is in ##IDENTITY. Store it somewhere e.g. #CUSTID.
Insert the book, specifying #CUSTID as the customer's ID.
Related
I am working trying to write an insert query into a backup database. I writing place and entities tables into this database. The issue is entities is linked to place via place.id column. I added a column place.original_id in the place table to store it's original 'id'. so now that i entered place into the new database it's id column changed but i have the original id stored so I can still link entities table to it. I am trying to figure out how to write entities to get the new id
so far i am at this point:
insert into entities_backup (id, place_id)
select
nextval('public.entities_backup_id_seq'),
(select id from places where original_id = (select place_id from entities) as place_id
from
entities
I know I am missing something because this does not work. I need to grab the id column from places when entity.place_id = places.original_id. Any help would be great.
I think this is what you want
insert into entities_backup (id, place_id)
select nextval('public.entities_backup_id_seq'), places.id
from places, entities
where places.original_id = entities.place_id;
I am working trying to write an insert query into a backup database. I writing place and entities tables into this database. The issue is entities is linked to place via place.id column. I added a column place.original_id in the place table to store it's original 'id'. so now that i entered place into the new database it's id column changed but i have the original id stored so I can still link entities table to it.
It would be simpler to not have this problem in the first place.
Rather than trying to fix this up after the fact, the better solution is to dump and load places and entities complete with their primary and foreign keys intact. Oracle's EXPORT or a utility such as ora2pg should be able to do it.
Sorry I can't say more. I know Postgres, not Oracle.
i am new to oracle 10g. I am using it to build some forms. I have created all the tables in sql+ and i have designed my forms. I am having a problem with the foreign key fields in the form.
I have a table named class, class has 4 foreign keys which are represented on the class form
R_ID which is the primary key of a table called ROOM
E_ID which the primary key of a table called EXAM
T_ID which is the primary key of a table called TERM
SUB_ID which is the primary key of a table called SUBJECT
In the class form i want the user to be able to create or update a record of a class. For user friendliness i want when they put the cursor on any one of the foreign key field to enter its value, I want the corresponding NAME from the parent table to be displayed as a drop down list instead/as well as the numerical foreign key value. The user's choice would populate the foreign key field of the class table so
IF R_ID = RM001 and the name of that room in the parent table is Chemistry LAB. I want the user to see chemistry lab and choose that but it populates the class table in the database as RM001
I have created all my navigation manually via buttons, this is the last thing i have to do and im stumped. I want the user to be able to click the field and the drop down list automatically appears.
Any ideas? thanks very much
Found the answer for people you are seeking this information
Use the list of values (lov) wizard.
Build query in the wizard by selecting the attributes of the table you want( the parent table of the foreign key)
Set the return value as the foreign key in the child table
Assign a button to execute the lov created
This works
I have my Entity model where every entity has a primary key and they are marked with StoreGeneratedPattern = "Identity", the entity I am interested in is PEOPLE. It was created in oracle, and in another schema exists a "PEOLPE_HIST" table with it sequence. Before insert into PEOPLE I search on PEOPLE_HIST and if the person exists. I get the history information to including the ID (primary key) to insert into new PEOPLE table. I created a trigger for PEOPLE table to check if the ID is greater than or equal to 0, if it is, then I will not use the sequence and insert the Hist ID.
Is this possible?
thanks in advance
Hi I have two table Customer and Orders.
Customer Id is primary in Customer and Foreign key in Orders.
I have done the following coding:
ForeignKeyConstraint custOrderFK = new ForeignKeyConstraint("CustOrderFK",
custDS.Tables["CustTable"].Columns["CustomerID"],
custDS.Tables["OrdersTable"].Columns["CustomerID"]);
custOrderFK.DeleteRule = Rule.None;
custDS.Tables["OrdersTable"].Constraints.Add(custOrderFK);
Since I have mentioned custOrderFK.DeleteRule = Rule.None; deleting an entry in customer's table should not affect order's table. But I am not able to delete a row from Customer table. It throws exception. I am new to ado.net.
Maybe something is wrong with my understanding of rules.
Use delete cascade option with foreign key.
I have a "services" table for detailing services that we provide. Among the data that needs recording are several small one-to-many relationships (all with a foreign key constraint to the service_id) such as:
service_owners -- user_ids responsible for delivery of service
service_tags -- e.g. IT, Records Management, Finance
customer_categories -- ENUM value
provider_categories -- ENUM value
software_used -- self-explanatory
The problem I have is that I want to keep a history of updates to a service, for which I'm using an update trigger on the table, that performs an insert into a history table matching the original columns. However, if a normalized approach to the above data is used, with separate tables and foreign keys for each one-to-many relationship, any update on these tables will not be recognised in the history of the service.
Does anyone have any suggestions? It seems like I need to store child keys in the service table to maintain the integrity of the service history. Is a delimited text field a valid approach here or, as I am using postgreSQL, perhaps arrays are also a valid option? These feel somewhat dirty though!
Thanks.
If your table is:
create table T (
ix int identity primary key,
val nvarchar(50)
)
And your history table is:
create table THistory (
ix int identity primary key,
val nvarchar(50),
updateType char(1), -- C=Create, U=Update or D=Delete
updateTime datetime,
updateUsername sysname
)
Then you just need to put an update trigger on all tables of interest. You can then find out what the state of any/all of the tables were at any point in history, to determine what the relationships were at that time.
I'd avoid using arrays in any database whenever possible.
I don't like updates for the exact reason you are saying here...you lose information as it's over written. My answer is quite simple...don't update. Not sure if you're at a point where this can be implemented...but if you can I'd recommend using the main table itself to store historical (no need for a second set of history tables).
Add a column to your main header table called 'active'. This can be a character or a bit (0 is off and 1 is on). Then it's a bit of trigger magic...when an update is preformed, you insert a row into the table identical to the record being over-written with a status of '0' (or inactive) and then update the existing row (this process keeps the ID column on the active record the same, the newly inserted record is the inactive one with a new ID).
This way no data is ever lost (admittedly you are storing quite a few rows...) and the history can easily be viewed with a select where active = 0.
The pain here is if you are working on something already implemented...every existing query that hits this table will need to be updated to include a check for the active column. Makes this solution very easy to implement if you are designing a new system, but a pain if it's a long standing application. Unfortunately existing reports will include both off and on records (without throwing an error) until you can modify the where clause