Relational Design AI Usage
Name of AI service/solution that was used
Claude Code (Anthropic)
- URL:
https://claude.com/claude-code - Type of service/subscription: Claude subscription, model Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context).
Final result
Diagram
The student produces relational_schema.jpg in DBeaver from the live project schema; see RelationalDesign for instructions.
Results in details / description
The AI:
- Consolidated two inconsistent draft schemas (
server/db/db.sqlandserver/db/schema.sql) into a singleschema_creation.sql. - Corrected foreign-key errors in the original (the
crypto_idcolumn inholdings,orders, andtransactionshad been pointed at bothusers(id)andcrypto(id); the AI split it into separateuser_idandcrypto_idcolumns perep-diagram.md). - Added two convenience views,
v_latest_pricesandv_portfolio, to keep the Go CLI simple. - Produced a sample-data script
data_load.sqlthat TRUNCATEs and re-inserts deterministic rows, so the "must work on empty DB and on a DB that already has data" requirement from P2 is met. - Documented normalisation up to 3NF and the intentional denormalisation of
holdings.avg_price.
Summary of AI involvement
| Session 1 — 2026-04-21 | Session 2 — 2026-08-06/07 | |
|---|---|---|
| What I brought | My own draft SQL (db.sql, schema.sql) and the model in ep-diagram.md | The schema as it stood after session 1 |
| What the AI did | Reviewed my SQL, found the foreign-key errors, consolidated two inconsistent drafts into one script | Reviewed the schema again; one constraint change, plus documentation of the transformation |
| What I decided | Which corrections to adopt, to keep both balance columns, to drop the secret-question fields | To make avg_price NOT NULL rather than handle nulls in application code
|
The relational model in this phase is a transformation of my ER model, and the foreign-key errors the AI found in session 1 were errors in my draft SQL — that review is the single most useful thing the AI did on this phase.
Entire AI usage log
See ERModelAIUsage — the full transcript of the 2026-04-21 conversation covers both P1 and P2 work. The specific prompts that drove the relational-design output were the same "make it work and make it fill in or to follow all of the needed instructions" instruction and the student's subsequent "do everything that you need to do".
Student action required: append any future consultations where you asked the AI to refine the schema, tune constraints, or write additional queries.
Session 2 — 2026-08-06 / 2026-08-07
Prompts are logged in full in ERModelAIUsage (section "Session 2 — 2026-08-06 / 2026-08-07"); the one that drove this phase was "Also fix some database things or golang things if you think we can do it better". Changes to the P2 artefacts:
holdings.avg_pricechanged from nullable toNOT NULL DEFAULT 0 CHECK (avg_price >= 0). Reason: it feeds the P/L arithmetic inv_portfolio, and SQL arithmetic involvingNULLproducesNULL, so a nullable average would have silently blanked the unrealised-P/L column of a real position. A related crash path in the Go code (scanning aNULLaverage into a non-nullablefloat64, which was reported to the user as "Insufficient holding") was fixed at the same time.- RelationalDesign gained an explicit account of the
partial transformation: which ER construct each foreign key comes from, that
M:N relationships with attributes become tables whose foreign-key pair is a
UNIQUEconstraint, and that total participation becomesNOT NULL— which is whytransactions.related_orderis the one nullable foreign key. - The candidate keys of
holdingsandwatchlist_itemsare now documented as the relationship keys{user_id, crypto_id}and{watchlist_id, crypto_id}.
Both scripts were re-run end to end against PostgreSQL 16 after these changes.
Still outstanding:
relational_schema.jpgmust be exported from DBeaver against the faculty database. No AI involvement is possible there — it needs a live connection to your assigned database.
Session 3 — 2026-09-16
Driven by the same design review logged in full in
ERModelAIUsage (section "Session 3 — 2026-09-16"):
a sell order had nothing to check holdings.quantity against except itself,
so nothing stopped two sell orders from being granted the same units.
Changes to the P2 artefacts:
holdingsgainedreserved_quantity numeric(20,4) NOT NULL DEFAULT 0 CHECK (reserved_quantity >= 0 AND reserved_quantity <= quantity)inschema_creation.sql.v_portfoliogainedreserved_quantityand the derivedavailable_quantity = quantity - reserved_quantity.- RelationalDesign gained a "Reservation and the order
lifecycle" section explaining why the check is enforced at the database
level rather than trusted to application code, and why it does not conflict
with the existing
SELECT … FOR UPDATElocking on the sell path. data_load.sqlneeded no change —reserved_quantitydefaults to 0, which is correct for every seeded holding.
Re-run end to end against the live database on localhost:5433
(-init then -load-data), and against a manually seeded 2 BTC holding to
reproduce the exact scenario that motivated the change — see
UseCase0005Implementation for
the transcript.
What I decided: to add the CHECK constraint rather than rely on
trade.go alone to keep the reservation consistent — the same reasoning
already applied to avg_price NOT NULL in session 2.
