I have a simple database with 2 main tables with a many to many relationship through a 3rd bridge/join table.
This 3rd table has an extra field besides the two keys required, so that Entity Framework transforms it into a full entity rather than a many to many relationship between the other 2 tables.
I cannot change this third table in the database itself. Is there a way to ignore the extra field so that EF can do what I want, or a way to manually transform the bridge table into a many to many relation?
Yes, update the store schema (SSDL) to remove the additional fields and regenerate the MSL/CSDL. The easiest way to do this is to create your mapping with a DB which doesn't have these fields. It will work fine against the "real" DB at runtime.
Related
Say I have a client dataset CDSPerson that acts as a wrapper around a Persons database table. Say I have another table, PersonBenefits, that joins 1:1 back to the Persons table.
Say I wrap a Delphi class around CDSPerson, PersonClass, and another class around CDSPersonBenefits, PersonBenefitsClass, to read and write records. PersonBenefitsClass inherits from PersonClass so it can provide data from both tables. I'd like to be able to write data back to either table through PersonBenefitsClass.
Has anyone developed a clean way to handle the SQL query, provider flags and commit logic in the inherited class so that (a) fields stay aligned with the parent class and (b) both database tables can be updated?
Is there a reference for this that I can't find? Is this just a bad idea? I'm using Delphi 2007.
If you're going to develop a business-object-to-database mapping framework, (commonly known as ORM, Object-Relational Mapper,) you're going to need to put in a bit of architecture to make relationships like this work properly. Here's one way to do it:
PersonClass and BenefitsClass both inherit from BusinessObjectClass. BusinessObjectClass is a base class that contains the general logic to interact with the dataset. It has a list object of some sort that contains a list of relation objects.
Each relation object is a special object that contains either one or a list of BusinessObjectClass descendants, plus extra data describing the foreign-key relationship between the two tables. When BusinessObjectClass does its queries and its updates, it needs to iterate through all its relation objects and have them do their own queries and updates as appropriate.
In your composite object, (PersonWithBenefitsClass,) in the constructor, call inherited and then set up a relation object that describes the related BenefitsClass. Make sure that any inserts of new objects are done in the right order to preserve referential integrity.
That's the basic idea. (One basic idea. There are probably plenty of other ways to do it.) I'll leave the details of exactly how you implement it up to you.
I'm using MS SQL Server 2008R2, but I believe this is database agnostic.
I'm redesigning some of my sql structure, and I'm looking for the best way to set up 1 to many relationships.
I have 3 tables, Companies, Suppliers and Utilities, any of these can have a 1 to many relationship with another table called VanInfo.
A van info record can either belong to a company, supplier or utility.
I originally had a company_id in the VanInfo table that pointed to the company table, but then when I added suppliers, they needed vaninfo records as well, so I added another column in VanInfo for supplier_id, and set a constraint that either supplier_id or company_id was set and the other was null.
Now I've added Utilities, and now they need access to the VanInfo table, and I'm realizing that this is not the optimum structure.
What would be the proper way of setting up these relationships? Or should I just continue adding foreign keys to the VanInfo table? or set up some sort of cross reference table.
The application isn't technically live yet, but I want to make sure that this is set up using the best possible practices.
UPDATE:
Thank you for all the quick responses.
I've read all the suggestions, checked out all the links. My main criteria is something that would be easy to modify and maintain as clients requirements always tend to change without a lot of notice. After studying, research and planning, I'm thinking it is best to go with a cross reference table of sorts named Organizations, and 1 to 1 relationships between Companies/Utilities/Suppliers and the Organizations table, allowing a clean relationship to the Vaninfo table. This is going to be easy to maintain and still properly model my business objects.
With your example I would always go for 'some sort of cross reference table' - adding columns to the VanInfo table smells.
Ultimately you'll have more joins in your SP's but I think the overhead is worth it.
When you design a database you should not think about where the primary/foreign key goes because those are concepts that doesn’t belong to the design stage. I know it sound weird but you should not think about tables as well ! (you could implement your E/R model using XML/Files/Whatever
Sticking to E/R relationship design you should just indentify your entity (in your case Company/supplier/utilities/vanInfo) and then think about what kind of relationship there is between them(if there are any). For example you said the company can have one or more VanInfo but the Van Info can belong only to one Company. We are talking about a one – to- many relationship as you have already guessed. At this point when you “convert” you design model (a one-to many relationship) to a Database table you will know where to put the keys/ foreign keys. In the case of a one-to-Many relationship the foreign key should go to the “Many” side. In this case the van info will have a foreign keys to company (so the vaninfo table will contain the company id) . You have to follow this way for all the others tables
Have a look at the link below:
https://homepages.westminster.org.uk/it_new/BTEC%20Development/Advanced/Advanced%20Data%20Handling/ERdiagrams/build.htm
Consider making Com, Sup and Util PKs a GUID, this should be enough to solve the problem. However this sutiation may be a good indicator of poor database design, but to propose a different solution one should know more broad database context, i.e. that you are trying to achive. To me this seems like a VanInfo should be just a separate entity for each of the tables (yes, exact duplicate like Com_VanInfo, Sup_VanInfo etc), unless VanInfo isn't shared between this entities (then relationships should be inverted, i.e. Com, Sup and Util should contain FK for VanInfo).
Your database basically need normalization and I think you're database should be on its fifth normal form where you have two tables linked by one table. Please see this article, this will help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_normal_form
You may also want to see this, database normalization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
I'm using Entity Framework 4 and with a Database First binding, and EF is not generating the entities for a few of my tables. I'm not getting any errors, and no matter how many times I select the tables to generate from the "Update Model from Database" popup menu on the design surface, the same tables are still missing from the model.
I get no errors in the wizard. They just don't get generated. Any clues?
EF requires a primary key on the table. EF will not map tables for which it can't find or derive a primary key. If all columns are nullable, it can't assume a primary key. If one or more columns are not nullable, EF will evidently derive a primary key for the table.
EF will ignore table without primary keys.
Options I can think of:
Did you check the box next to those tables?
Did you previously add them, then delete their entities but keep the cache of the tables?
If so you can remove them from entity browser window and re-add them
or manually add entities and define the table they map to in mappings window.
Perhaps tables were classified as relations instead of entities?
You can manually add the entities and choose the table they map to in mappings window.
Actually, in my case, it doesn't work because I was using a hierarchyid field as a primary key and EF doesn't work with this field type, so, it didn't import the table, because a valid PK is required.
A possibility is when you're using tables with some different field types, as hierarchy in SQL Server.
Without Primary Key Tables where Skip Automatically on EF, OtherWise You Fix a Value as Not Null.
I'm an NHibernate developer trying to give Entity Framework a shot in a hobby project. I'm used to specifying mapping data in code using Fluent NHibernate. Pardoning Microsoft's belief that developers shouldn't be allowed to write code, I'm trying to create my mappings using the Entity Framework's visual designer surface (which you get by opening the .edmx file in Visual Studio).
I have no idea how to set up a many-to-many relationship! I have 'updated the model' from the database, but I get two one-to-many relationships with a new entity corresponding to the junction table (which contains only foreign keys and its own primary key).
So far, all attempts at working this out by clicking on the entities and relationships and such have failed. Can anyone give me a pointer?
Your junction table must be what MS calls a 'pure join table' - it must contain only the two foreign keys, and no other columns. In your case, that means you must delete the primary key column.
When you add the association to the model you choose each of your two tables and choose "many" on both sides of the relationship. When this generates the database script a join table with only the two keys will be created for you.
By the way: If you don't like using Model-first and would rather code research "Code-First" development for the Entity Framework. You can also do Database-First if you prefer that.
I am one of hibernate user in Australia. Recently, I have been dealing with hibernate many-to-many mapping and not going well though.
I got in trouble with "join/associate table with extra columns mapping".
Let`s say there are three tables called Product Order and OrderProduct (includes extra column quantity). Product holds many-to-many relationship with Order.
My confusion is that do we have to consider both ends of associate table when we are writing mapping files? or just write either side?
Also, is it necessary to produce mapping file for the associate table as well?
Any suggestions will be appreciated!!
create a view to join two tables. this view and rest table is many to one relationship
Hope it's userful
You should have an association mapping and entity because you need to create them just like an other entity.