thr3ads.net - Rails - one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions [Jun 2007]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Thufir

2007-Jun-21 07:00 UTC

one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

My understanding is that, given tables Alpha and Beta that the table 
which holds the 1-to-1 relation will be called Alpha_Beta (or is it 
alpha_beta?).  So far so good.

alpha_beta will have, lets say, two fields:  alpha_id and beta_id.  Seems 
that it''d be a good idea for those two fields to form a compound
primary
key, ensuring there are no duplicates.

However, RoR doesn''t support compound primary keys.  So, does table 
alpha_beta require its own id for a primary key?  If so, that''s what 
drives me up the wall about Microsoft Access.  Else, the option is to use 
alpha_id, or beta_id, as the primary key.  Either of those options seem 
sub-optimal to my mind, and, really, the choice would be entirely 
arbitrary.  Unless, for consistency, it''s just the "first"
one, which,
really, while predictable, is still arbitrary in that it''s no better
than
the "second" one (alphabetically wise).

Do I understand how RoR works correctly?  If I made an error with the 
naming conventions, or anything else, please do correct me :)

also, it''s standard to have three databases:

dummy_test
dummy_development
dummy_production

yes?





thanks,

Thufir


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Brian Hogan

2007-Jun-21 15:15 UTC

head link

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

If your alphas_betas table contains no additional keys, then you use a "has
and belongs to many" relationship in rails.... This is the only out of the
box compound key that''s supported, but that''s because you
don''t have a
model.

class Alpha < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_and_belongs_to_many :betas
end

class Beta< ActiveRecord::Base
  has_and_belongs_to_many :alphas
end

@beta = Beta.find(1)
@alphas = @beta.alphas


Keep in mind that the join table should be pluralized on both sides and
should be in alphabetical order... alphas_betas. (that''s the
convention).


Now, if your join table has additional attributes, then, by the Rails
philosophy, it''s now not really a join, but rather its own model with
foreign keys. Thus, you use a has_many :through relationship.

I recommend reading some about has_and_belongs_to_many and has_many
:through.  You can find lots on google, as well as in the Agile Web
Development book.

Does that help?


On 6/21/07, Thufir <hawat.thufir-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
>
> My understanding is that, given tables Alpha and Beta that the table
> which holds the 1-to-1 relation will be called Alpha_Beta (or is it
> alpha_beta?).  So far so good.
>
> alpha_beta will have, lets say, two fields:  alpha_id and beta_id.  Seems
> that it''d be a good idea for those two fields to form a compound
primary
> key, ensuring there are no duplicates.
>
> However, RoR doesn''t support compound primary keys.  So, does
table
> alpha_beta require its own id for a primary key?  If so, that''s
what
> drives me up the wall about Microsoft Access.  Else, the option is to use
> alpha_id, or beta_id, as the primary key.  Either of those options seem
> sub-optimal to my mind, and, really, the choice would be entirely
> arbitrary.  Unless, for consistency, it''s just the
"first" one, which,
> really, while predictable, is still arbitrary in that it''s no
better than
> the "second" one (alphabetically wise).
>
> Do I understand how RoR works correctly?  If I made an error with the
> naming conventions, or anything else, please do correct me :)
>
> also, it''s standard to have three databases:
>
> dummy_test
> dummy_development
> dummy_production
>
> yes?
>
>
>
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Thufir
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Brian Hogan

2007-Jun-21 15:15 UTC

head link

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Oh, and yes... three databases. One for development, one for tests (you
should embrace unit testing), and one for when you go live. (production).

On 6/21/07, Brian Hogan <bphogan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
> If your alphas_betas table contains no additional keys, then you use a
> "has and belongs to many" relationship in rails.... This is the
only out of
> the box compound key that''s supported, but that''s because
you don''t have a
> model.
>
> class Alpha < ActiveRecord::Base
>   has_and_belongs_to_many :betas
> end
>
> class Beta< ActiveRecord::Base
>   has_and_belongs_to_many :alphas
> end
>
> @beta = Beta.find(1)
> @alphas = @beta.alphas
>
>
> Keep in mind that the join table should be pluralized on both sides and
> should be in alphabetical order... alphas_betas. (that''s the
convention).
>
>
> Now, if your join table has additional attributes, then, by the Rails
> philosophy, it''s now not really a join, but rather its own model
with
> foreign keys. Thus, you use a has_many :through relationship.
>
> I recommend reading some about has_and_belongs_to_many and has_many
> :through.  You can find lots on google, as well as in the Agile Web
> Development book.
>
> Does that help?
>
>
> On 6/21/07, Thufir
<hawat.thufir-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My understanding is that, given tables Alpha and Beta that the table
> > which holds the 1-to-1 relation will be called Alpha_Beta (or is it
> > alpha_beta?).  So far so good.
> >
> > alpha_beta will have, lets say, two fields:  alpha_id and
> > beta_id.  Seems
> > that it''d be a good idea for those two fields to form a
compound primary
> > key, ensuring there are no duplicates.
> >
> > However, RoR doesn''t support compound primary keys.  So, does
table
> > alpha_beta require its own id for a primary key?  If so,
that''s what
> > drives me up the wall about Microsoft Access.  Else, the option is to
> > use
> > alpha_id, or beta_id, as the primary key.  Either of those options
seem
> > sub-optimal to my mind, and, really, the choice would be entirely
> > arbitrary.  Unless, for consistency, it''s just the
"first" one, which,
> > really, while predictable, is still arbitrary in that it''s no
better
> > than
> > the "second" one (alphabetically wise).
> >
> > Do I understand how RoR works correctly?  If I made an error with the
> > naming conventions, or anything else, please do correct me :)
> >
> > also, it''s standard to have three databases:
> >
> > dummy_test
> > dummy_development
> > dummy_production
> >
> > yes?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Thufir
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Bob Showalter

2007-Jun-21 20:22 UTC

head link

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

On 6/21/07, Thufir <hawat.thufir-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
> My understanding is that, given tables Alpha and Beta that the table
> which holds the 1-to-1 relation will be called Alpha_Beta (or is it
> alpha_beta?).  So far so good.
>
> alpha_beta will have, lets say, two fields:  alpha_id and beta_id.  Seems
> that it''d be a good idea for those two fields to form a compound
primary
> key, ensuring there are no duplicates.
>
> However, RoR doesn''t support compound primary keys.  So, does
table
> alpha_beta require its own id for a primary key?  If so, that''s
what
> drives me up the wall about Microsoft Access.  Else, the option is to use
> alpha_id, or beta_id, as the primary key.  Either of those options seem
> sub-optimal to my mind, and, really, the choice would be entirely
> arbitrary.  Unless, for consistency, it''s just the
"first" one, which,
> really, while predictable, is still arbitrary in that it''s no
better than
> the "second" one (alphabetically wise).
To add to what Brian said, yes, alphas_betas needs it''s own
"id"
column. You''re right that RoR (ActiveRecord, really) doesn''t
support
compound PK''s. AR will maintain the uniqueness, but you can add a
unique index on alpha_id, beta_id. (If the table is large, you should
index both columns for retrieval anyway.)

It won''t work to let alpha_id or beta_id be the PK, because there will
be duplicates of each (otherwise, it isn''t a many-many relation).

If you create your tables with migrations (which you should; a
migration stub is generated for you when you generate a model), you
don''t even specify the id column. Rails adds it for you.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Brian Hogan

2007-Jun-21 22:17 UTC

head link

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

@Bob:

You don''t need an id column on the join table if it''s a
has_and_belongs_to_many association... you only need it with has_many
:through.    I believe that habtm has it''s place for simple
relationships.
However, it may be beneficial to use has_many :through in this case.

Just want to make sure the OP wasn''t getting confused by us :)


On 6/21/07, Bob Showalter
<showaltb-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
>
> On 6/21/07, Thufir
<hawat.thufir-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > My understanding is that, given tables Alpha and Beta that the table
> > which holds the 1-to-1 relation will be called Alpha_Beta (or is it
> > alpha_beta?).  So far so good.
> >
> > alpha_beta will have, lets say, two fields:  alpha_id and
> beta_id.  Seems
> > that it''d be a good idea for those two fields to form a
compound primary
> > key, ensuring there are no duplicates.
> >
> > However, RoR doesn''t support compound primary keys.  So, does
table
> > alpha_beta require its own id for a primary key?  If so,
that''s what
> > drives me up the wall about Microsoft Access.  Else, the option is to
> use
> > alpha_id, or beta_id, as the primary key.  Either of those options
seem
> > sub-optimal to my mind, and, really, the choice would be entirely
> > arbitrary.  Unless, for consistency, it''s just the
"first" one, which,
> > really, while predictable, is still arbitrary in that it''s no
better
> than
> > the "second" one (alphabetically wise).
>
> To add to what Brian said, yes, alphas_betas needs it''s own
"id"
> column. You''re right that RoR (ActiveRecord, really)
doesn''t support
> compound PK''s. AR will maintain the uniqueness, but you can add a
> unique index on alpha_id, beta_id. (If the table is large, you should
> index both columns for retrieval anyway.)
>
> It won''t work to let alpha_id or beta_id be the PK, because there
will
> be duplicates of each (otherwise, it isn''t a many-many relation).
>
> If you create your tables with migrations (which you should; a
> migration stub is generated for you when you generate a model), you
> don''t even specify the id column. Rails adds it for you.
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Thufir

2007-Jun-22 00:41 UTC

head link

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

On Jun 21, 3:17 pm, "Brian Hogan"
<bpho...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:> @Bob:
>
> You don''t need an id column on the join table if it''s a
> has_and_belongs_to_many association... you only need it with has_many
> :through.    I believe that habtm has it''s place for simple
relationships.
> However, it may be beneficial to use has_many :through in this case.
>
> Just want to make sure the OP wasn''t getting confused by us :)[...]

Nope, I''m confused by the replies.

what''s with the has and belongs to?  That exists only on the OOP side
of things, composition and inheritance, yes?  it doesn''t exist in
databases, to my knowledge at least...

by the way, to my thinking, tables alpha and beta would have, say,
four fields each, for example, including the id field.  The table with
the relation, alphas_betas, would, to my thinking, not need more than
two fields.

-Thufir

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Brian Hogan

2007-Jun-22 04:45 UTC

head link

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Yes.. has and belongs to many is on the OO side.   Have you read through
"Agile Web Development with Rails" yet? It covers this topic much
better
than I can.

On 6/21/07, Thufir <hawat.thufir-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:>
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 3:17 pm, "Brian Hogan"
<bpho...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > @Bob:
> >
> > You don''t need an id column on the join table if
it''s a
> > has_and_belongs_to_many association... you only need it with has_many
> > :through.    I believe that habtm has it''s place for simple
> relationships.
> > However, it may be beneficial to use has_many :through in this case.
> >
> > Just want to make sure the OP wasn''t getting confused by us
:)
> [...]
>
> Nope, I''m confused by the replies.
>
> what''s with the has and belongs to?  That exists only on the OOP
side
> of things, composition and inheritance, yes?  it doesn''t exist in
> databases, to my knowledge at least...
>
>
> by the way, to my thinking, tables alpha and beta would have, say,
> four fields each, for example, including the id field.  The table with
> the relation, alphas_betas, would, to my thinking, not need more than
> two fields.
>
>
>
> -Thufir
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Thufir

2007-Jun-22 06:20 UTC

head link

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:45:57 -0500, Brian Hogan wrote:
> Yes.. has and belongs to many is on the OO side.   Have you read through
> "Agile Web Development with Rails" yet? It covers this topic much
better
> than I can.[...]

Not until I set up p2p, which won''t be until I upgrade to fedora 7,
which
won''t be until I re-install win2k, which won''t be until I back
up my
data...my kingdom for a horse ;)

My immediate interest in RoR is just to get it configured for a legacy 
database, really nothing more than that.

On this topic, though, it seems that the OO side is describing things 
which don''t exist on the database, which strikes me as a questionable 
practice, and that what exists on the database might not be expressed in 
RoR.  However, I''m not at all well-informed on the topic!

In any event, it was largely just an idle question about a curious 
statement I''d come across while flipping through a book.

-Thufir

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Thufir

2007-Jun-22 06:31 UTC

head link

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:15:08 -0500, Brian Hogan wrote:
> If your alphas_betas table contains no additional keys, then you use a
> "has and belongs to many" relationship in rails.... This is the
only out
> of the box compound key that''s supported, but that''s
because you don''t
> have a model.
I''m not sure what a model is, but if there''s a model then
it''s possible
to have a compound key composed of fields alpha_id and beta_id in table 
alphas_betas?
> class Alpha < ActiveRecord::Base
>   has_and_belongs_to_many :betas
> end
> 
> class Beta< ActiveRecord::Base
>   has_and_belongs_to_many :alphas
> end
> 
> @beta = Beta.find(1)
> @alphas = @beta.alphas[...]

This, I take it, is the model describing that alpha and beta belong to 
each other which allows the compound key?
> Now, if your join table has additional attributes, then, by the Rails
> philosophy, it''s now not really a join, but rather its own model
with
> foreign keys. Thus, you use a has_many :through relationship.
Yes, I think I read something about this.  In fact, I know I did.  What 
struck me was trying to figure out *what* would be in the join table 
which wouldn''t already be in either alpha or beta to begin with.  There
was an example, I do recall, but it escapes me at the moment.
> I recommend reading some about has_and_belongs_to_many and has_many
> :through.  You can find lots on google, as well as in the Agile Web
> Development book.
> 
> Does that help?[...]

Yes.

the post was designed to be mildly inflammatory to get some responses 
(mission accomplished), but, for me, it''s a definite side-issue which I
won''t be further reading up on, at least intentionally, until I have my
ducks in a row.



-Thufir


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Thufir

2007-Jun-22 06:34 UTC

head link

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:15:48 -0500, Brian Hogan wrote:
> Oh, and yes... three databases. One for development, one for tests (you
> should embrace unit testing), and one for when you go live.
> (production).[...]

Thanks.  It seems odd to use:

dummy_development
dummy_test
dummy_production

but to never use just "dummy" by itself.  Oh well.


Thanks,

Thufir


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Thufir

2007-Jun-22 06:40 UTC

head link

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:22:23 -0400, Bob Showalter wrote:
[...]> To add to what Brian said, yes, alphas_betas needs it''s own
"id" column.
> You''re right that RoR (ActiveRecord, really) doesn''t
support compound
> PK''s. AR will maintain the uniqueness, but you can add a unique
index on
> alpha_id, beta_id. (If the table is large, you should index both columns
> for retrieval anyway.)
Hmm.  I read mention of that idea, but at the moment am not enamored of 
it.
> It won''t work to let alpha_id or beta_id be the PK, because there
will
> be duplicates of each (otherwise, it isn''t a many-many relation).[...]

Right, but any combination should only occur once.  This would typically 
be achieved by making alpha_id and beta_id a compound key, to my 
knowledge.  How are duplicate combinations prevented?


thanks,

Thufir


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Mikel

2007-Jun-26 00:51 UTC

head link

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Thufir,

RyanB has done a great screen cast on this that you should watch.

It''s called Two Many-to-Many and is on his website at
http://railscasts.com/

Reagrds


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Seemingly Similar Threads

Search for more reasonably related threads

Rails - Jun 2007 - one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Re: one-to-one, compound primary key, naming conventions

Seemingly Similar Threads