问题
Say I run an online business where you can order products from my website, and I have a database with two tables:
Table order with the fields order_number, customer_ID, address
Table customer with the fields customer_ID, first_name, last_name
To get a full, detailed 'report' of the order, I would perform a LEFT JOIN to concatenate data from the order table to include the customer's first and last names along with their address and order number.
My question is, how are these tables related? Are they at all? What would an entity relationship diagram look like? Separately they don't seem to interact and act more like lookup tables for each other.
回答1:
An order would always have a customer, no? So it is not a left but inner join.
What links them is the customer_id. So your SQL is simply:
select o.order_number, o.customer_ID, o.address,
c.first_name, c.last_name
from orders o
inner join customer c on o.customer_ID = c.customer_ID;
Entity relationship:
Order Customer Customer_Id 0...N >---+ 1 Customer_Id ... ...
This EF relation is from MS SQL Server's sample database Northwind. In that sample database, just like yours, there are Customers and Orders. Customers and Orders tables are related via the CustomerId fields in both tables (it is the primary key in Customers, and foreign key in Orders table). When you model that as an Entity relation than you have the above diagram. Customer entity have an "Orders" navigation property (via customerId) that points to a particular Customer's Orders. And Order entity have a navigation property that points to its Customer (again via CustomerId). The relation is 1 to 0 or many (1 - *), meaning a Customer might have 0 or more Orders.
When you do the join from Customer's side, you use a LEFT join "if you want to see all Customers regardless they have Order(s) or not" - 0 or more Order(s). If you want to see only those with Order(s) then you use an inner join.
When you do the join from Orders' side, then an Order must have a Customer so it can't be a LEFT join. It is an INNER join.
You can check the relation from both sides using the connecting CustomerId field.
You wouldn't have a separate table for "OrderId, CustomerId" as it is not many-to-many relation (it would be pure redundancy and would create normalization anomalies).
Hope it is more clear now.
回答2:
In the entity-relationship model, we don't relate tables. Instead, we relate entities which are represented by their key values. In your example, the customer entity (represented by customer_ID) has a one-to-many relationship with the order entity (represented by order_number) and this relationship is recorded in the order table (where order_number is associated with customer_ID). If we were to strictly follow the ER model, we would record (order_number, customer_ID) (a relationship relation) in a separate table from (order_number, address) (an entity relation).
If there's a foreign key constraint on order.customer_ID referencing customer.customer_ID, that's a subset relation that ensures that every order's customer is a known customer. Thus, the relation between the tables and the relation between the entities is not the same thing.
The relational model allows us to relate (join) tables in any way we need. The obvious join for your example would be on the shared domain customer_ID, but I could just as easily find orders which contain a customer's last_name in its delivery address.
An ER diagram for your example could look like this:
回答3:
My question is, how are these tables related? Are they at all? What would an entity relationship diagram look like? Separately they don't seem to interact and act more like lookup tables for each other.
When dealing with data modeling in an ER-Diagram, more in the conceptual model, we should never start thinking of tables, primary keys, foreign keys and stuff as this is for the later model to the conceptual model, the logical model.
By modeling entities in ER-Diagram, we must always recognize them by their attributes/properties. The entities become concrete when we can find properties in them. I feel a lack of context here, so I'll proceed with a guess:
If you need to persist products in your database, and you need to save the attributes/properties of them, then we have a Products entity.
If you need to persist clients/users in your database along with
their properties/attributes, then we have a Customers entity.
According to what you said, customers are able to purchase products. So, you have to relate these two entities in any way. With this in mind, stop and think about the following:
- You need to persist purchases/orders.
- Purchases/orders show which users bought which products.
By linking products and customers, what would we get? The purchasing/orders event, right?
We would then have two entities relating to each other forming the purchasing (or "orders", you name it) event. This event is formed by the need for the present business rules (your rules). You as modeler you need to persist the orders, and you know that products and customers relate in some way, so you can create a relationship between the two entities representing the orders event.
As has been well discussed in other answers, there is the need of separation of attributes here. If the field "address" is where a user lives, not where the product will be delivered, then this attribute must exist in the Customers entity.
If this field/attribute/property is the final location of delivery, it should remain in the relationship orders created between the two entities, customers and products.
Let's talk now about cardinality. If a customer can purchase/order more than one product, and the same product can be purchased by more than one user, then we have a N-N relationship here. I believe this is your case.
Based on everything that was said, we find the following conceptual model:
By decomposing this model, and developing the logic model, we would have:
Now, for what reason we end up with this kind of model?
Relations N-N allow the existence of properties/attributes (if needed), so we can have attributes/properties in the relation Orders, resulting in an ORDERS table with the fields shown. This table represents the purchases/orders made by users/customers.
And for what reason the existence of "Products from orders"?
We need to say what products were purchased in which purchases/orders, especially showing how many of the same type are acquired. In N-N relationships, some properties induces the appearance of new relations which become tables later. In such situations, it is the discretion of the modeler.
In "Products from orders" entity we have a composite primary key, represented by foreign keys.
With this type of model, you can see:
- Which users made purchases/orders.
- Which purchases/orders were made by which users.
- Which products belong to which purchases/orders.
- Which products have been acquired by which users.
- How many products of a type were purchased/ordered.
Using the date field, you can find out how many purchases were made in periods:
- Weeks.
- Months.
- Years.
- Quarters.
- Etc.
If you are interested, see also:
E-R diagram confusion
If you have any questions, please comment and I will answer.I hope I've helped a bit.
Cheers.
回答4:
"Related" is a vague and confusing term. This is because "relationship" gets used in two different ways: as "association" (between values) and as "foreign key" (between tables).
You do not need to know anything about how tables are "related" by foreign keys or common columns in order to query. What matters is how values in a query's result rows are related/associated by the query. The important relationships/associations are (represented by) the tables.
From a relational perspective, there would be a foreign key from Order referencing Customer on customer_id.
A Chen-style ER diagram would have Order and Customer entity types (boxes) and an Orders relationship type (diamond) with participations (lines) from Orders to Order and to Customer. It would have a table for each type. This is an example of perfectly sensible relational design that the ER model, with its artificial and perverse distinction between entities and relationships, cannot capture. People will use a database design like yours to implement such an ER design, though. Even though the ER design isn't, then, the design.
--
When using a database, values are used to identify entities or as property names and magnitudes. Each base table holds the rows of values that participate in some relationship/association given by the DBA. Each query result holds the rows of values that participate in a relation/association that is a combination of conditions and the relationships/associations of the base tables it mentions. All you need to know to query is the relationships/associations of tables.
Order -- order ORDER_NUMBER is by customer CUSTOMER_ID to address ADDRESS
Customer -- customer CUSTOMER_ID is named FIRST_NAME LAST NAME
Order JOIN (Customer WHERE FIRST_NAME='Eddie')
-- order ORDER_NUMBER is by customer CUSTOMER_ID to address ADDRESS
AND customer CUSTOMER_ID is named FIRST_NAME LAST NAME
AND FIRST_NAME='Eddie'
Sometimes values for a list of columns in a row of one table must also appear as values for a list of columns in another table or that table. This is because if the listed values and others satisfy one table's relationship/association then the listed values and yet others will satisfy the other table's relationship/association.
/* IF there exist ORDER_ID & ADDRESS satisfying
order ORDER_NUMBER is by customer CUSTOMER_ID to address ADDRESS
THEN there exist FIRST_NAME & LAST_NAME satisfying
customer CUSTOMER_ID is named FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
*/
FOREIGN KEY Order(customer_id) REFERENCES Customer(customer_id)
This means that those particular tables and column lists satisfy the (one and only) relationship/association "foreign key in this database". (And a database will have a meta-data table for its foreign key relationship/association.)
We say that "there is a foreign key" from the first table's list of columns to the second table's list of columns. There's only one foreign key relationship/association for the database. When there is a foreign key its tables and column lists satisfy this database's foreign key relationship. But a foreign key isn't a relationship/association. People call foreign keys "relationships", but they are not.
But foreign keys don't matter to querying! (Ditto for any other constraint.) A query's result holds rows whose values (entity & property info) are related/associated by that query's relationship/association, built from conditions and base table relationships/associations.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37169448/how-are-these-tables-related