Related
In Datomic, how do you efficiently perform queries such as 'find all people living in Washington older than 50' (city and age may vary)? In relational databases and most of NoSQL databases you use composite indexes for this purpose; Datomic, as far as I'm aware of, does not support anything like this.
I built several, say, medium-sized web-apps and not a single one would perform quick enough, if not for composite indexes. How are Datomic users dealing with this? Or are they just playing with datasets small enough not to suffer from this? Am I missing something?
This problem and its solution are not identical in Datomic due to the structure of data (datoms) in Datomic. There are two performance characteristics/strategies that may add some shading to this:
(1) When you fetch data in Datomic, you fetch an entire leaf segment from the index tree (not an individual item) - with segments being composed of potentially many thousands of datoms. This is then cached automatically so that you don't have to reach out over the network to get more datoms.
If you're querying a single person - i.e., a single entity, for their age and where they live, it's very likely the query's navigation of the EAVT or AEVT indexes may have cached everything you need. You've effectively cached the datom, how to navigate to it to it, and related datoms (by locality in the index).
(2) Partitions can provide a manual means to specify locality of reference. Partitions impact the entity ID's value (it's encoded in the high bits) and ensure that related entities are sorted near each other. So for an alternative implementation of the above problem, if you needed information from the city and person entities both, you could include them in the same partition.
I've written a library to handle this: https://github.com/arohner/datomic-compound-index
Update 2019-06-28: Since 0.9.5927 (Datomic On-Prem) / 480-8770 (Datomic Cloud), Datomic supports Tuples as a new Attribute Type, which allows you to have compound indexes.
I was wondering if you have a website with a dozen different types of listings (Shops, Restaurants, Clubs, Hotels, Events) that require different fields, is there a benefit of creating a table with columns defined like so
Example Shop:
shop_id | name | X | Y | city | district | area | metro | station | address | phone | email | website | opening_hours
Or a more abstract approach similar to this:
object_id | name
---------------
1 | Messy Joe's
2 | Bate's Motel
type_id | name
---------------
1 | hotel
2 | restaurant
object_id | type_id
---------------
1 | 2
2 | 1
field_id | name | field_type
---------------
1 | address | text
2 | opening_hours | date
3 | speciality | text
type_id | field_id
---------------
1 | 1
1 | 2
2 | 1
2 | 3
object_id | field_id | value
1 | 1 | 1st street....
1 | 3 | English Cuisine
Of course it can be more abstract if value's are predefined (Example: specialties could have their own list)
If I take the abstract approach it can be very flexible, but queries will be more complex with a lot of joins.
But I don't know if this affects the performance, executing these 'more complex' queries.
I would be interested to know what are the up and downsides of both methods. I can just imagine for myself, but I don't have the experience to confirm this.
Certain issues need to be clarified and resolved before we can enter into a reasonable discussion.
Pre-requisite Resolution
Labels
In a profession that demands precision, it is important that we use precise labels, to avoid confusion, and so that we can communicate without having to use long-winded descriptions and qualifiers.
What you have posted as FixedTables, is Unnormalised. Fair enough, it may be an attempt at Third Normal form, but in fact it is a flat file, Unnormalised (not "denormalised). What you have posted as AbstractTables is, to be precise, Entity-Attribute-Value, which is almost, but not quite, Sixth Normal form, and is therefore more Normalised than 3NF. Assuming it is done correctly, of course.
The Unnormalised flat file is not "denormalised". It is chock full of duplication (nothing has been done to remove repeating groups and duplicate columns or to resolve dependencies) and Nulls, it is a performance hog in many ways, and prevents concurrency.
In order to be Denormalised, it has to first be Normalised, and then the Normalisation backed off a little for some good reason. Since it is not Normalised in the first place, it cannot be Denormalised. It is simply Unnormalised.
It cannot be said to be denormalised "for performance", because being a performance hog, it is the very antithesis of performance. Well, they need a justification for the lack of formalised design], and "for performance" is it. Even the smallest formal scrutiny exposed the misrepresentation (but very few people can provide, so it remains hidden, until they get an outsider to address, you guessed it, the massive performance problem).
Normalised structures perform far better than Unnormalised structures. More normalised structures (EAV/6NF) perform better than less normalised structures (3NF/5NF).
I am agreeing with the thrust of OMG Ponies, but not their labels and definitions
rather than saying 'don't "denormalise" unless you have to', I am saying, 'Normalise faithfully, period' and 'if there is a performance problem, you have not Normalised correctly'.
Wikipedia
The entries for Normal Forms and Normalisation offer definitions that are incorrect; they confuse the Normal Forms; they are lacking regarding the process of Normalisation; and they give equal weight to absurd or questionable NFs which have been debunked long ago. The result is, Wikipedia adds to an already confused and rarely understood subject. So don't waste your time.
However, in order to progress, without that reference posing a hindrance, let me say this.
The definition of 3NF is stable, and has not changed.
There is a lot of confusion of the NFs between 3NF and 5NF. The truth is that this is an area that progressed over the last 15 years; and many orgs, academics as well as vendors with their products with limitations, jumped to create a new "Normal Form" to validate their offerings. All serving commercial interests and academically unsound. 3NF in its original untampered state intended and guaranteed certain attributes.
The sum total is, 5NF is today, what 3NF was intended to be 15 years ago, and you can skip the commercial banter and the twelve or so "special" (commercial and pseudo-academic) NFs in-between, some of which are identified in Wikipedia, and even that in confusing terms.
Fifth Normal Form
Since you have been able to understand and implement the EAV in your post, you will have no problem understanding the following. Of course a true Relational Model is pre-requisite, strong keys, etc. Fifth Normal Form is, since we are skipping the Fourth:
Third Normal Form
which in simple definitive terms is, every non-key column in every table has a 1::1 relationship to the Primary Key of the table,
and to no other non-key columns
Zero data duplication (the result, if Normalisation is progressed diligently; not achieved by intelligence or experience alone, or by working toward it as a goal without the formal process)
no Update Anomalies (when you update a column somewhere, you do not have to update the same column located somewhere else; the column exists in one and only one place).
If you understand the above, 4NF, BCNF, and all the silly "NFs" can be dismissed, they are required for physicalised Record Filing Systems, as promoted by academics, quite foreign to the Relational Model (Codd).
Sixth Normal Form
The purpose is elimination of missing data (attribute columns), aka elimination of Nulls
This is the one true solution to the Null Problem (also called Handling Missing Values), and the result is a database without Nulls. (It can be done at 5NF with standards and Null substitutes but that is not optimal.) How you interpret and display the missing values is another story.
Technically, is not a true Normal Form, because it does not have 5NF as a pre-requisite, but it has a value
EAV vs Sixth Normal Form
All the databases I have written, except one, are pure 5NF. I have worked with (administered, fixed up, enhanced) a couple of EAV databases, and I have implemented many true 6NF databases. EAV is a loose implementation of 6NF, often done by people who do not have a good grasp on Normalisation and the NFs, but who can see the value in, and need the flexibility of, EAV. You are a perfect example.
The difference is this: because it is loose, and because implementers do not have a reference (6NF) to be faithful to, they only implement what they need, and they write it all in code; that ends up being an inconsistent model.
Whereas, a pure 6NF implementation does have a pure academic reference point, and thus it is usually tighter, and consistent. Typically this shows up in two visible elements:
6NF has a catalogue to contain metadata, and everything is defined in metadata, not code. EAV does not have one, everything is in code (implementers keep track of the objects and attributes). Obviously a catalogue eases the addition of columns, navigation, and allows utilities to be formed.
6NF when understood, provides the true solution to The Null Problem. EAV implementers, since they are absent the 6NF context, handle missing data in code, inconsistently, or worse, allow Nulls in the database. 6NF implementers disallow Nulls, and handle missing Data consistently and elegantly, without requiring code constructs (for Null handling; you still have to code for missing data of course).
Eg. For 6NF databases with a catalogue, I have a set of procs that will [re]generate the SQL required to perform all SELECTs, and I provide Views in 5NF for all users, so they do not need to know or understand the underlying 6NF structure. They are driven off the catalogue. Thus changes are easy and automated. EAV types do that manually, due to the absence of the catalogue.
Discussion
Now, we can start the discussion.
"Of course it can be more abstract if
value's are predefined (Example:
specialities could have their own
list)"
Sure. But do not get too "abstract". Maintain consistency and implement such lists in the same EAV (or 6NF) manner as other lists.
"If I take the abstract approach it
can be very flexible, but queries will
be more complex with a lot of joins.
But I don't know if this affects the
performance, executing these 'more
complex' queries."
Joins are pedestrian in relational databases. The problem is not the database, the problem is that SQL is cumbersome when handling joins, especially compound keys.
EAV and 6NF databases have more Joins, which just as pedestrian, no more, no less. If you have to code each SELECT manually, sure, the cumbersome gets really cumbersome.
The entire problem can be eliminated by (a) going with 6NF over EAV and (b) implementing a catalogue, from which you can (c) generate all the basic SQL. Eliminates an entire class of errors as well.
It is a common myth that Joins somehow have a cost. Totally false.
The join is implemented at compile time, there is nothing of substance to 'cost' CPU cycles.
The issue is the size of tables being joined, not the cost of the Join between those same tables.
Joining two tables with millions of rows each, on a correct PK⇢FK relation, each of which have the appropriate indices
(Unique on the parent [PK] side; Unique on the Child side [PK=parent FK + something]
is instantaneous
Where the Child index is not unique, but at least the leading columns are valid, it is slower; where there is no useful index, of course it is very slow.
None of it has to do with Join cost.
Where many rows are returned, the bottleneck will be the network and the disk layout; not the join processing.
Therefore you can get as "complex" as you like, there is no cost, SQL can handle it.
I would be interested to know what are
the up and downsides of both methods.
I can just imagine for myself, but I
don't have the experience to confirm
this.
5NF (or 3NF for those who have not made the progression) is the easiest and best, in terms of implementation; ease of use (developers as well as users); and maintenance.
The drawback is, every time you add a column, you have to change the database structure (table DDL). That is fine is some cases, but not in most cases, due to change control in place, quite onerous.
Second, you have to change existing code (code handling the new column does not count, because that is an imperative): where good standards are implemented, that is minimised; where they are absent, the scope is unpredictable.
EAV (which is what you have posted), allows columns to be added without DDL changes. That is the single reason people choose it. (code handling the new column does not count, because that is an imperative). If implemented well, it will not affect existing code; if not, it will.
But you need EAV-capable developers.
When EAV is implemented badly, it is abominable, a worse mess than 5NF done badly, but not any worse than Unnormalised which is what most databases out there are (misrepresented as "denormalised for performance").
Of course, it is even more important (than in 5NF/3NF) to hold a strong Transaction context, because the columns are far more distributed.
Likewise, it is essential to retain Declarative Referential Integrity: the messes I have seen were due in large part to the developers removing DRI because it became "too hard to maintain", the result was, as you can imagine, one mother of a data heap with duplicate 3NF/5NF rows and columns all over the place. And inconsistent Null handling.
There is no difference in performance, assuming that the server has been reasonably configured for the intended purpose. (Ok, there are specific optimisations that are possible only in 6NF, which are not possible in other NFs, but I think that is outside the scope of this thread.) And again, EAV done badly can cause unnecessary bottlenecks, no more so than Unnormalised.
Of course, if you go with EAV, I am recommending more formality; buy the full quid; go with 6NF; implement a catalogue; utilities to produce SQL; Views; handle Missing Data consistently; eliminate Nulls altogether. This reduces your vulnerability to the quality of your developers; they can forget about the EAV/6NF esoteric issues, use Views, and concentrate on the app logic.
In your question, you have presented at least two major issues at the same time. Those two issues are E-A-V and gen-spec.
First, let's talk about E-A-V. Your last table (object_id, field_id, value) is essentially an E-A-V. There is an upside to E-A-V and a downside to E-A-V. The upside is that the structure is so generic that it can accomodate almost any body of data describing almost any subject matter. That means that you can proceed to design and implementation with no data analysis and no understanding of the subject matter, and not worry about wrong assumptions. The down side is that at retrieval time, you have to do the data analysis that you skipped over before building the data base, in order to come up with queries that mean anything. This is much more serious than just retrieval efficiency. But you are also going to have terrible problems with retrieval efficiency. There are only two ways to learn about this pitfall: live through it or read about it from those who have. I recommend the reading.
Second, you have a gen-spec case. Your table (object_id, type_id) captures a gen-spec (generalization-specialization) pattern, along with the related tables. If I had to generalize between hotels and restaurants, I might call it something like "public accomodations" or "venues". But I'm not sure I understand your case, and you may be driving for something even more general than those two names suggest. After all, you've included "events" in your list, and an event is not a type of venue in my mind.
I've referred other people to readings on gen-spec and the relational model in previous responses.
When two tables are very similar, when should they be combined?
But I hesitate to send you off in the same direction, because it's not clear to me that you want to come up with a relational model of the data before building your database. A relational model of a body of data and an E-A-V model of the same data are almost totally at odds with each other. It seems to me you have to make that choice before you even explore how to express gen-spec in the relational model of data.
When you start to require a large number of different entities (or even before...), a nosql solution would be vastly simpler than either choice.
Just store each entity/record with the exact fields you require.
{
"id": 1,
"type":"Restaurant",
"name":"Messy Joe",
"address":"1 Main St.",
"tags":["asian","fusion","casual"]
}
The "abstract" approach is better known as "Normalization", looks like 3rd Normal Form (3NF).
The other one is called "Denormalized", and can be a valid performance option... when you've encountered speed issues using the Normalized approach, not before.
How do you have the listings represented in code? I'd guess Listing as a supertype, with Shop, Restuarant, etc. as subtypes?
Assuming so, this is a case of how to map subtypes to a relational database. There are generally three choices:
Option 1: single table per subtype,
with common attributes repeated in
each table (name, id, etc).
Option 2: single table for all objects (your single table approach)
Option 3: table for the supertype and one for each subtype
There's no universally correct solution. My preference is generally to start with option 3; it provides an intituitive structure to work with, is pretty well normalised and can easily be extended. It means a single join for retrieving each instance - but RDBMS are well optimised for doing joins so it doesn't really cause performance problems in practice.
Option 2 can be more performant for queries (no joins) but causes problems if other tables need to refer to all supertype instances (proliferation of foreign keys).
Option 1 appears at first sight to be the most performant, although 2 caveats: (1) It's not resilient to change. If you add a new subtype (and so different attributes) you'll need to change the table structure and migrate it. (2) It can be less efficient than it seems. Because the table population is sparse, some DBs don't store it particularly efficiently. As a consequence it can be less efficicent than option 1 - since the query engine can do joins faster than it can search bloated sparse table spaces.
Which to choose really comes down to knowing details of your problem. I'd suggest reading up a bit on the options: this article is a good place to start.
hth
Is it when you're trying to get data and there is no apparent easy way of doing it?
When you find something should be a table on it's own?
What are the laws?
Check out Wikipedia. The article talks about database normalization and the different forms (first, second, third, etc.). Most times you should be aiming for at least third normal form. There are times when you want to relax the rules a bit (it may be too expensive to join multiple tables together so might want to de-normalize a bit) but for the most part third normal form is good.
When you notice you have to repeat the same data, or when you start using single fields as arrays.
While this is a somewhat snarky answer, when you discover that the data isn't sufficiently normalized. There are many resources on the web about the levels (or, more properly, "forms") of normalization, and they more completely describe the forms than I could here. First and second normal forms should be pretty much required. If you aren't at third (or, really, fourth) normal form, you need to have a strong justification as to why.
Check out the Wikipedia article on database normalization.
When you're starting to question whether an SQL database needs more normalization.
Whenever you have a relational database.... <grin/>
No, actually there are laws, check out this Wikipedia link.
they are called the five normal forms or something like that. Originally from the guy who invented relational databases in the 50s/60s, E. F. Codd.
"The key the whole key and nothing but the Key, so help me Codd"
This is a synopsis:
First normal form (1NF) Table
faithfully represents a relation and
has no repeating groups
Second normal form (2NF) No
non-prime attribute in the table is
functionally dependent on a part
(proper subset) of a candidate key
Third normal form (3NF) Every
non-prime attribute is
non-transitively dependent on every
key of the table Every non-trivial functional dependency in the table is a dependency on a superkey
Fourth normal form (4NF) Every
non-trivial multivalued dependency
in the table is a dependency on a
superkey
Fifth normal form (5NF) Every non-trivial join dependency in the table is implied by the superkeys of the table. Domain/key normal form (DKNF) Ronald Fagin (1981)[19] Every constraint on the table is a logical consequence of the table's domain constraints and key constraints
Sixth normal form (6NF) Table features no
non-trivial join dependencies at all
(with reference to generalized join
operator)
Other people have pointed you to the formal rules for normalization. Here are some informal guidelines I use:
If you have columns in a table the names of which differ only by a number (eg Phone1 and PHone2).
If you have any columns in a table that should be filled in only when another column in the table is filled in.
If updating a "fact" in the database (such as a street address) requires more than one UPDATE.
If the same question could ever get two different answers depending on which table you get your information from.
If the answer to any non-trivial question can be gotten from the database without JOINing at least two tables.
If you have any quantity-based restrictions in the database other than "only 1 of something is allowed" (that is, "only one address is allowed" is okay, but "only two addresses are allowed" indicates a normalization problem).
3NF is generally all you need and it follows three rules:
Every column in the table should be dependent on:
the key (1NF),
the whole key (2NF),
and nothing but the key (3NF) (so help me Codd is the way that quote usually ends).
You can often "downgrade" to 2NF for performance reasons, provided you understand the implications and only when you strike problems, but 3NF should be the initial goal for all your designs..
As everyone else has said, you know when you start having (too many) duplicate columns in multiple tables.
That being said, it is sometimes useful to have redundant columns across multiple tables. This can reduce the number of JOINs you have to do in complicated queries. Just be careful to keep all the tables in sync, or you're just asking for trouble.
This is a pretty good article. Getting normal is a science, not an art. Now knowing when to DEnormalize... that's an art.
http://www.alvechurchdata.co.uk/hints-and-tips/softnorm.html
See Description of the database normalization basics
What level of normalization are you currently at? If you can't answer that I assume your database is a nasty mess. I always hit 3rd normal on initial design and de-normalize or normalize further if and when needed.
I assume you're talking about a transactional database supporting an interactive application, but for what it's worth...
OLAP databases used exclusively for reporting and only updated by ETL processes may benefit from a less normalized structure. In these applications you accept the cost of redundant data storage and duplication for the performance benefit of fewer joins and the increased ease of use for (sometimes less technical) data analysts and business analysts.
Transactional databases should always be normalized to the extent practical (at least 3NF) and then selectively denormalized only as needed. And the need to denormalize should ideally be based on actual performance testing results.
When you have to search trough huge amounts of data just to extract some basic info - i.e. what kind of Product categories are there or something like that.
I feel that this is likely a common problem, but from my google searching I can't find a solution quite as specific to my problem.
I have a list of Organizations (table) in my database and I need to be able to run queries based on their hierarchy. For example, if you query the highest Organization, I would want to return the Id's of all the Organizations listed under that Organization. Further, if I query an organization sort of mid-range, I want only the Organization Id's listed under that Organization.
What is the best way to a) set up the database schema and b) query? I want to only have to send the topmost Organization Id and then get the Id's under that Organization.
I think that makes sense, but I can clarify if necessary.
As promised in my comment, I dug up an article on how to store hierarchies in a database that allows constant-time retrieval of arbitrary subtrees. I think it will suit your needs much better than the answer currently marked as accepted, both in ease of use and speed of access. I could swear I saw this same concept on wikipedia originally, but I can't find it now. It's apparently called a "modified preorder tree traversal". The gist of it is you number each node in the tree twice, while doing a depth-first traversal, once on the way down, and once on the way back up (i.e. when you're unrolling the stack, in a recursive implementation). This means that the children of a given node have all their numbers in between the two numbers of that node. Throw an index on those columns and you've got really fast lookups. I'm sure that's a terrible explanation, so read the article, which goes into more depth and includes pictures.
One simple way is to store the organization's parentage in a text field, like:
SALES-EUROPE-NORTH
To search for every sales organization, you can query on SALES-%. For each European sales org, query on SALES-EUROPE-%.
If you rename an organization, take care to update its child organizations as well.
This keeps it simple, without recursion, at the cost of some flexibility.
The easy way is to have a ParentID column, which is a foreign key to the ID column in the same table, NULL for root nodes. But this method has some drawbacks.
Nested sets are an efficient way to store trees in an relational database.
You could have an Organization have an id PK and a parent FK reference to the id. Then for the query, use (if your database backend supports them) recursive queries, aka Common Table Expressions.
My employer, a small office supply company, is switching suppliers and I am looking through their electronic content to come up with a robust database schema; our previous schema was pretty much just thrown together without any thought at all, and it's pretty much led to an unbearable data model with corrupt, inconsistent information.
The new supplier's data is much better than the old one's, but their data is what I would call hypernormalized. For example, their product category structure has 5 levels: Master Department, Department, Class, Subclass, Product Block. In addition the product block content has the long description, search terms and image names for products (the idea is that a product block contains a product and all variations - e.g. a particular pen might come in black, blue or red ink; all of these items are essentially the same thing, so they apply to a single product block). In the data I've been given, this is expressed as the products table (I say "table" but it's a flat file with the data) having a reference to the product block's unique ID.
I am trying to come up with a robust schema to accommodate the data I'm provided with, since I'll need to load it relatively soon, and the data they've given me doesn't seem to match the type of data they provide for demonstration on their sample website (http://www.iteminfo.com). In any event, I'm not looking to reuse their presentation structure so it's a moot point, but I was browsing the site to get some ideas of how to structure things.
What I'm unsure of is whether or not I should keep the data in this format, or for example consolidate Master/Department/Class/Subclass into a single "Categories" table, using a self-referencing relationship, and link that to a product block (product block should be kept separate as it's not a "category" as such, but a group of related products for a given category). Currently, the product blocks table references the subclass table, so this would change to "category_id" if I consolidate them together.
I am probably going to be creating an e-commerce storefront making use of this data with Ruby on Rails (or that's my plan, at any rate) so I'm trying to avoid getting snagged later on or having a bloated application - maybe I'm giving it too much thought but I'd rather be safe than sorry; our previous data was a real mess and cost the company tens of thousands of dollars in lost sales due to inconsistent and inaccurate data. Also I am going to break from the Rails conventions a little by making sure that my database is robust and enforces constraints (I plan on doing it at the application level, too), so that's something I need to consider as well.
How would you tackle a situation like this? Keep in mind that I have the data to be loaded already in flat files that mimic a table structure (I have documentation saying which columns are which and what references are set up); I'm trying to decide if I should keep them as normalized as they currently are, or if I should look to consolidate; I need to be aware of how each method will affect the way I program the site using Rails since if I do consolidate, there will be essentially 4 "levels" of categories in a single table, but that definitely seems more manageable than separate tables for each level, since apart from Subclass (which directly links to product blocks) they don't do anything except show the next level of category under them. I'm always a loss for the "best" way to handle data like this - I know of the saying "Normalize until it hurts, then denormalize until it works" but I've never really had to implement it until now.
I would prefer the "hypernormalized" approach over a denormal data model. The self referencing table you mentioned might reduce the number of tables down and simplify life in some ways, but in general this type of relationship can be tricky to deal with. Hierarchical queries become a pain, as does mapping an object model to this (if you decide to go that route).
A couple of extra joins is not going to hurt and will keep the application more maintainable. Unless performance degrades due to the excessive number of joins, I would opt to leave things like they are. As an added bonus if any of these levels of tables needed additional functionality added, you will not run into issues because you merged them all into the self referencing table.
I totally disagree with the criticisms about self-referencing table structures for parent-child hierarchies. The linked list structure makes UI and business layer programming easier and more maintainable in most cases, since linked lists and trees are the natural way to represent this data in languages that the UI and business layers would typically be implemented in.
The criticism about the difficulty of maintaining data integrity constraints on these structures is perfectly valid, though the simple solution is to use a closure table that hosts the harder check constraints. The closure table is easily maintained with triggers.
The tradeoff is a little extra complexity in the DB (closure table and triggers) for a lot less complexity in UI and business layer code.
If I understand correctly, you want to take their separate tables and turn them into a hierarchy that's kept in a single table with a self-referencing FK.
This is generally a more flexible approach (for example, if you want to add a fifth level), BUT SQL and relational data models don't tend to work well with linked lists like this, even with new syntax like MS SQL Servers CTEs. Admittedly, CTEs make it much better though.
It can be difficult and costly to enforce things, like that a product must always be on the fourth level of the hierarchy, etc.
If you do decide to do it this way, then definitely check out Joe Celko's SQL for Smarties, which I believe has a section or two on modeling and working with hierarchies in SQL or better yet get his book that is devoted to the subject (Joe Celko's Trees and Hierarchies in SQL for Smarties).
Normalization implies data integrity, that is: each normal form reduces the number of situations where you data is inconsistent.
As a rule, denormalization has a goal of faster querying, but leads to increased space, increased DML time, and, last but not least, increased efforts to make data consistent.
One usually writes code faster (writes faster, not the code faster) and the code is less prone to errors if the data is normalized.
Self referencing tables almost always turn out to be much worse to query and perform worse than normalized tables. Don't do it. It may look to you to be more elegant, but it is not and is a very poor database design technique. Personally the structure you described sounds just fine to me not hypernormalized. A properly normalized database (with foreign key constraints as well as default values, triggers (if needed for complex rules) and data validation constraints) is also far likelier to have consistent and accurate data. I agree about having the database enforce the rules, likely this is part of why the last application had bad data because the rules were not enforced in the proper place and people were able to easily get around them. Not that the application shouldn't check as well (no point even sending an invalid date for instance for the datbase to fail on insert). Since youa redesigning, I would put more time and effort into designing the necessary constraints and choosing the correct data types (do not store dates as string data for instance), than in trying to make the perfectly ordinary normalized structure look more elegant.
I would bring it in as close to their model as possible (and if at all possible, I would get files which match their schema - not a flattened version). If you bring the data directly into your model, what happens if data they send starts to break assumptions in the transformation to your internal application's model?
Better to bring their data in, run sanity checks and check that assumptions are not violated. Then if you do have an application-specific model, transform it into that for optimal use by your application.
Don't denormalize. Trying to acheive a good schema design by denormalizing is like trying to get to San Francisco by driving away from New York. It doesn't tell you which way to go.
In your situation, you want to figure out what a normalized schema would like. You can base that largely on the source schema, but you need to learn what the functional dependencies (FD) in the data are. Neither the source schema nor the flattened files are guaranteed to reveal all the FDs to you.
Once you know what a normalized schema would look like, you now need to figure out how to design a schema that meets your needs. It that schema is somewhat less than fully normalized, so be it. But be prepared for difficulties in programming the transformation between the data in the flattened files and the data in your desgined schema.
You said that previous schemas at your company cost millions due to inconsistency and inaccuracy. The more normalized your schema is, the more protected you are from internal inconsistency. This leaves you free to be more vigilant about inaccuracy. Consistent data that's consistently wrong can be as misleading as inconsistent data.
is your storefront (or whatever it is you're building, not quite clear on that) always going to be using data from this supplier? might you ever change suppliers or add additional different suppliers?
if so, design a general schema that meets your needs, and map the vendor data to it. Personally I'd rather suffer the (incredibly minor) 'pain' of a self-referencing Category (hierarchical) table than maintain four (apparently semi-useless) levels of Category variants and then next year find out they've added a 5th, or introduced a product line with only three...
For me, the real question is: what fits the model better?
It's like comparing a Tuple and a List.
Tuples are a fixed size and are heterogeneous -- they are "hypernormalized".
Lists are an arbitrarty size and are homogeneous.
I use a Tuple when I need a Tuple and a List when I need a list; they fundamentally server different purposes.
In this case, since the product structure is already well defined (and I assume not likely to change) then I would stick with the "Tuple approach". The real power/use of a List (or recursive table pattern) is when you need it to expand to an arbitrary depth, such as for a BOM or a genealogy tree.
I use both approaches in some of my database depending upon the need. However, there is also the "hidden cost" of a recursive pattern which is that not all ORMs (not sure about AR) support it well. Many modern DBs have support for "join-throughs" (Oracle), hierarchy IDs (SQL Server) or other recursive patterns. Another approach is to use a set-based hierarchy (which generally relies on triggers/maintenance). In any case, if the ORM used does not support recursive queries well, then there may be the extra "cost" of using the to the DB features directly -- either in terms of manual query/view generation or management such as triggers. If you don't use a funky ORM, or simply use a logic separator such as iBatis, then this issue may not even apply.
As far as performance, on new Oracle or SQL Server (and likely others) RDBMS, it ought to be very comparable so that would be the least of my worries: but check out the solutions available for your RDBMS and portability concerns.
Everybody who recommends you not to have a hierarchy introduced in the database, considering just the option of having a self-referenced table. This is not the only way to model the hierarchy in the database.
You may use a different approach, that provides you with easier and faster querying without using recursive queries.
Let's say you have a big set of nodes (categories) in your hierarchy:
Set1 = (Node1 Node2 Node3...)
Any node in this set can also be another set by itself, that contains other nodes or nested sets:
Node1=(Node2 Node3=(Node4 Node5=(Node6) Node7))
Now, how we can model that? Let's have each node to have two attributes, that set the boundaries of the nodes it contains:
Node = { Id: int, Min: int, Max: int }
To model our hierarchy, we just assign those min/max values accordingly:
Node1 = { Id = 1, Min = 1, Max = 10 }
Node2 = { Id = 2, Min = 2, Max = 2 }
Node3 = { Id = 3, Min = 3, Max = 9 }
Node4 = { Id = 4, Min = 4, Max = 4 }
Node5 = { Id = 5, Min = 5, Max = 7 }
Node6 = { Id = 6, Min = 6, Max = 6 }
Node7 = { Id = 7, Min = 8, Max = 8 }
Now, to query all nodes under the Set/Node5:
select n.* from Nodes as n, Nodes as s
where s.Id = 5 and s.Min < n.Min and n.Max < s.Max
The only resource-consuming operation would be if you want to insert a new node, or move some node within the hierarchy, as many records will be affected, but this is fine, as the hierarchy itself does not change very often.