Home/ Questions/Q 7973091
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-06-04T08:01:04+00:00

I’ve created a database with three tables in it: Restaurant restaurant_id (autoincrement, PK) Owner

  • 0

I’ve created a database with three tables in it:

Restaurant
restaurant_id (autoincrement, PK)

Owner
owner_id (autoincrement, PK)
restaurant_id (FK to Restaurant)

Deal
deal_id (autoincrement)
owner_id (FK to Owner)
restaurant_id (FK to Restaurant)
(PK: deal_id, owner_id, restaurant_id)

There can be many owners for each restaurant. I chose two foreign keys for Deal so I can reference the deal by either the owner or the restaurant. The deal table would have three primary keys, two being foreign keys. And it would have two one-to-many relationships pointing to it. All of my foreign keys are primary keys and I don’t know if I’ll regret doing it like this later on down the road. Does this design make sense, and seem good for what I’m trying to achieve?

Edit: What I really need to be able to accomplish here is when a owner is logged in and viewing their account, I want them to be able to see and edit all the deals that are associated with that particular restaurant. And because there can be more that one owner per restaurant, I need to be able to perform a query something like: select *from deals where restaurant_id = restaurant_id. In other words, if I’m an owner and I’m logged in, I need to be able to make query: get all of the deal that are related to not just me, the owner, but to all of the owners associated with this restaurant.

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    You’re having some trouble with terminology.

    A table can only ever have a one primary key. It is not possible to create a table with two different primary keys. You can create a table with two different unique indexes (which are much like a primary key) but only one primary key can exist.

    What you’re asking about is whether you should have a composite or compound primary key; a primary key using more than one column.

    Your design is okay, but as written you probably have no need for the column deal_id. It seems to me that restaurant_id and owner_id together are enough to uniquely identify a row in Deal. (This may not be true if one owner can have two different ownership stakes in a single restaurant as the result of recapitalization or buying out another owner, but you don’t mention anything like that in your problem statement).

    In this case, deal_id is largely wasted storage. There might be an argument to be made for using the deal_id column if you have many tables that have foreign keys pointing to Deal, or if you have instances in which you want to display to the user Deals for multiple restaurants and owners at the same time.

    If one of those arguments sways you to adopt the deal_id column, then it, and only it, should be the primary key. There would be nothing added by including the other two columns since the autoincrement value itself would be unique.

    • 0