I have an existing database with 10 or so tables and thousands of rows. I’m tiring of SQL and would like to add an ORM — probably either Objection or Sequelize.
Is there a good way to implement either ORM on an existing database?
It's not particularly difficult to connect Sequelize to an existing database. You just need to configure the connection and set up models.
If your previously-created tables include some attributes that don't match up to Sequelize's approach out of the box, you may need to write some extra code in your models. Again, this is fairly painless. See Working With Legacy Tables for additional information.
Related
So I have a database where I want to store all the tables including those about members. But recently I was searching online and saw that I think someone said that it wasn't a good idea so should I or should I not separate very important SQL tables to different databases
It depends on the requirement. If you make separate database for few tables then you need to manage more consistency. and important thing is that, we cant prevent SQL Injection bby making it separate.
Micro service concept suggest to make separate database for each micro service. But in that case you will have module wise structure and independent design.
So, i suggest to go with single database if you have relational tables.
I'm having a problem with my students using multi-valued fields in access and getting confused about normalisation as a result.
Here is what I can make out. Given a 1-to-many relationship, e.g.
Articles Comments
-------- --------
artID{PK} commID{PK}
text text
artID{FK}
Access makes it possible to store this information into what appears to be one table, something like
Articles
--------
artID{PK}
text
comment
+ value
"value" referring to multiple comment values for the comment "column", which access actually stores as a separate table. The specifics of how the values are stored - table, its PK and FK - is completely hidden, but it is possible to query the multi-valued field, e.g. in the example above with the query
INSERT INTO article( [comment].Value )
VALUES ('thank you')
WHERE artID = 1;
But the query doesn't quite reveal the underlying structure of the hidden table implementing the multi-valued field.
Given this (disaster, in my view) - my problem is how to help newcomers to database design and normalisation understand what Access is offering them, why it may not be helpful, and that it is not a reason to ignore the basics of the relational model. More specifically:
Are there better ways, besides queries as above, to reveal the structure behind multi-valued fields?
Are there good examples of where the multi-valued field is not good enough, and shows the advantage of normalising explicitly?
Are there straightforward ways to obtain the multi-select visual output of Access multi-values, but based on separate, explicit tables?
Thanks!
I cannot give you advice in using this feature, because I never used it; however, I can give you reasons not to use it.
I want to have full control on what I'm doing. This is not the case for multi-valued fields, therefore I don't use them.
This feature is not expandable. What if you want to add a date field to your comments, for instance?
It is sometimes necessary to upsize an Access (backend) database to a "big" database (SQL Server, Oracle). These Databases don't offer such a feature. It is often the customer who decides which database has to be used. Recently I had to migrate an Access application (frontend) using an Oracle backend to a SQL-Server backend because my client decided to drop his Oracle server. Therefore it is a good idea to restrict yourself to use only common features.
For common tasks like editing lookup tables I created generic forms. My existing solutions will not work with multi-valued fields.
I have a (self-made) tool that synchronizes changes in the structure of the database on my developer’s site with the database on the client’s site. This tool cannot deal with multi-valued fields.
I have tools for the security management that can grant SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE rights on tables or revoke them. Again, the management tool does not work with multi-valued fields.
Having a separate table for the comments allows you to quickly inspect all the comments (by opening the table). You cannot do this with multi-valued fields.
You will not see the 1 to n relation between the articles and the comments in a database diagram.
With a separate table you can choose whether you want to cascade deletes to the details table or not. If you don't, you will not be able to delete an article as long as there are comments attached to it. This can be desirable, if you want to protect the comments from being deleted inadvertently.
It is important to realize the difference between physical and logical relationships. Today the whole internet and web services (SOAP) quite much realizes on a data format that is multi-value in nature.
When you represent multi-value data with a relational database (such as Access), then behind the scenes you are using a traditional (and legitimate) relation. I cannot stress that as such, then the use of multi-value columns in Access is in fact a LEGITIMATE relational model.
The fact that table is not exposed does not negate this issue. In fact, if you represent an invoice (master record, and repeating details) as a XML data cube, then we see two things:
1) you can build and represent that invoice with a relational database like Access
2) such a relational data model that is normalized can ALSO be represented as a SINGLE xml string.
3) deleting the XML record (or string) means that cascade delete of the child rows (invoice details) MUST occur.
So while it is true that Multi-Value fields been added to Access to deal with SharePoint, it is MOST important to realize that such data can be mapped to a relational database (if you could not do this, then Access could not consume that XML data using relational database tables as ACCESS CURRENTLY DOES RIGHT NOW).
And with the web such as XML, and SharePoint then the need to consume and manage and utilize such data is not only widespread, but is in fact a basic staple of the internet.
As more and more data becomes of a complex nature, we find the requirement for multi-value data exploding in use. Anyone who used that so called "fad" the internet is thus relying and using data that is in fact VERY OFTEN XML and is multi-value (complex) in nature.
As long as the logical (not physical) relational data model is kept, then use of multi-value columns to represent such data is possible and this is exactly what Access is doing (it is mapping the relational data model to a complex model). Note that the complex (xml) data model does NOT necessary have to be relational in nature. However, if you ARE going to map such data to Access then the complex multi-value model MUST CONFORM TO A RELATIONAL data model.
This is EXACTLY what is occurring in Access.
The fact that such a correct and legitimate math relational model is not exposed is of little issue here. Are we to suggest that because Excel does not expose the binary codes used then users will never learn about computers? Or perhaps we all must program in assembler so we all correctly learn how computers works.
At the end of the day, who cares and why does this matter? The fact that people drive automatic cars today does not toss out the concept that they are using different gears to operate that car. The idea that we shut down all of society because someone is going to drive an automatic car or in this case use complex data would be galactic stupid on our part.
So keep in mind that extensions to SQL do exist in Access to query the multi-value data, but as well pointed out here those underlying tables are not exposed. However, as noted, exposing such tables would STILL REQUIRE one to not change or mess with cascade delete since that feature is required TO MAINTAIN A INTERSECTION OF FEATURES and a CORRECT MATH relational model between the complex data model (xml) and that of using two related tables to represent such data.
In other words, you can use related tables to represent the complex data model IF YOU REMOVE the ability of users to play with the referential integrity options. The RI options MUST remain as set in those hidden tables else such data will not be able to make the trip BACK to the XML or complex data model of which it was consumed from.
As noted, in regards to users being taught how gasoline reacts with oxygen for that of learning to drive a car, or using a word processor and being forced to learn a relational model and expose the underlying tables makes little sense here.
However, the points made here in regards to such tables being exposed are legitimate concerns.
The REAL problem is SQL server and Oracle etc. cannot consume or represent that complex data WHILE ACCESS CAN CONSUME such data.
As noted, the complex data ship has LONG ago sailed! XML, soap, and the basic technologies of the internet are based on this complex data model.
In effect, SQL server, Oracle and most databases cannot that consume this multi-value data represent it without users having to create and model such data in a relational fashion is a BIG shortcoming of SQL server etc.
Access stands alone in this ability to consume this data.
So, for anyone who used a smartphone, iPad or the web, you are using basic technologies that are built around using complex data, something that Access now allows.
It is likely that the rest of the industry will have to follow suit given that more and more data is complex in nature. If the database industry does not change, then the mainstream traditional relational database system will NOT be the resting place of such data.
A trend away from storing data in related tables is occurring at a rapid pace right now and products like SharePoint, or even Google docs is proof of this concept. So Access is only reacting to market pressures and it is likely that other database vendors will have to follow suit or simply give up on being part of the "fad" called the internet.
XML and complex data structures are STAPLE and fact of our industry right now – this is not an issue we all should run away from, but in fact embrace.
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
kallal#msn.com
The technical discussion is interesting. I think the real problem lies in student understanding. Because it is available in Access students will use it, and initially it will probably provide a simple solution to some design problems. The negatives will occur later when they try and use the data. Maybe a simple example demonstrating the problems would persuade some students to avoid using multi-valued fields ? Maybe an example of storing the data in another, more usable format would help ?
Good luck !
Peter Bullard
MS Access does a great job of simplifying database management and abstracting out a lot of complexity. This however makes the learning of dbms concepts a bit difficult. Have you tried using other 'standard' dbms tools like MySQL (or even sqlite). From a learning perspective they may be better.
I know this post is old. But, it's not quite the same as every other post I've seen on this topic. This one has someone making a good case for using Multi Valued Fields...
As someone who is trying who is still trying very hard to get their head around Access, I find the discussion for and against using the Multi Valued Fields incredibly frustrating.
I'm trying to sort through it all, but if everyone is so against them, what is an alternative method? It seems that in every search result I find everyone is either telling you how to use Multi Valued Fields and Controls or telling you how horrible and what a mistake they are. Many people refer to an alternative to them, but nobody says "Here's an example". I'm here to learn about these things. And while I know that this is a simpler concept for a lot of people in these forums, I could really use some examples to take a look at.
I'm at a point where I have to decide which way to go. It would be wonderful to compare examples of using Multi Valued Fields and alternatives and using a control to select multiple values.
Or am I wrong and the functionality of a combobox where you can select multiple items is only available through Access?
I want to address the last of your questions first. There is a way of providing a visual presentation of a parent child relationship. It's called subforms. If you get help about subforms in Access, it will explain the concept.
I have used subforms in a project where I wanted to display the transaction header in a form and the transaction details in a subform. There is nothing to hinder this construct even when the data is stored in two normalized tables.
Of course, this affects the screen, not the database. That's the whole point. Normalization is relevant to storage and retrieval, not to other uses of data.
I'm currently implementing a new functionality to a tool in an e-learning platform. I need to retrieve some columns from 3 different tables in the database. The particular tool is implemented with Hibernate technology where a class is mapped to a database table.
However, I need to use some information from different tables to build a single class.
Can you Hibernate provide this sort of implementation?
If not, will it be appropriate for me to use SQL in this situation?
Is it a good practice to have 2 database technologies in one place?
Hibernate is made to do this, multiple tables either through relationships such as many-to-one, or multiple tables which represent different subtypes, etc. You can use entity-name to map a single class to two different tables for different situations. So the answer is yes.
As to doing Hibernate and hand-coding SQL in the same application, I think it's a very common practice, sometimes it's 200% easier to do than figure out the Hibernate mapping for a small detail. I'm referring to something like JDBC, but as nowaq points out, you cna do this in Hibernate as well.
Yes, Hibernate can do this. Take a look at this post: Mapping One Java Class to Two Database Tables with Hibernate.
Maybe its not your case, but in general having two tables mapped to a single class may be a signal that you've got something wrong with your design. Make sure to take a second look.
Try not to mix too many frameworks and technologies in your app. You may end up with bunch of dependencies and very complex, unclean code.
I think its quite usual task, but still solutions I saw look not so nice.
For example in Qt used approach based on MVC pattern -- you must assign all connections manually.
Or I remember one PHP engine where pages were creating from DB schema.
Which are other approaches? Which one you are prefer? What are the best practices?
Usually, there is not a one to one mapping from the database to the GUIThere are many subtle combinations that change between how you store the data and how that stored data is visualized and edited by the user.
however, you can automate a datamodel layer in your code with tools like Hibernate. You will still need to use the model as required to present your user interface.
A colleague of mine is currently designing SQL queries like the one below to produce reports, which are displayed in excel files through an external data query.
At present, only reporting processes on the DB are required (no CRUD operations).
I am trying to convince him that it would be better to use a ruby ORM in order to be able to display the data in a rails/sinatra app.
Despite the obvious advantages in displaying the data, what advantages are there for him in learning to use an ORM like Sequel or Datamapper?
The SQL queries he is writing are clearly quite complex, and being relatively new to SQL, he often complains that it is very time-consuming and confusing.
Is it possible to write extremely complex queries with an ORM? and if so, which is the most suitable(I have heard Sequel is good for legacy dbs)? and what are the advantages of learning ruby and using an ORM versus sticking with plain SQL, in making complex database queries?
I'm the DataMapper maintainer, and I think for complex reporting you should use SQL.
While I do think someday we'll have a DSL that provides the power and conciseness of SQL, everything I've seen so far requires you to write more Ruby code than SQL for complex queries. I would much rather maintain a 5 line SQL query than 10-15 lines of Ruby code to describe the same complex operation.
Please note I say complex.. if you have something simple, use the ORM's build-in finders. However, I do believe there is a line you can cross where SQL becomes simpler. Now, most apps aren't just reporting. You may have alot of CRUD type operations, for which an ORM is perfectly suited and far better than doing those things by hand.
One thing that an ORM will usually provide is some sort of organization to your application logic. You can group code based around each model in the same file. It's usually there that I'll put the complex SQL query, rather than embedding it in the controller, eg:
class User
include DataMapper::Resource
property :id, Serial
property :name, String, :length => 1..100, :required => true
property :age, Integer, :min => 1, :max => 130
def self.some_complex_query
repository.adapter.select <<-SQL
SELECT ...
FROM ...
WHERE ...
... more complex stuff here ...
SQL
end
end
Then I can just generate the report using User.some_complex_query. You could also push the SQL query into a view if you wanted to further cleanup this code.
EDIT: By "view" in the above sentence I meant RDBMS view, rather than view in the MVC context. Just wanted to clear up any potential confusion.
If you are writing your queries by hand you have the chance to optimize them. When I look at that query I see some potential for optimizations (E.ICGROUPNAME LIKE '%san-fransisco%' or E.ICGROUPNAME LIKE '%bordeaux%' wont use an index = Table Scan).
When using an OR Mapper (the native Objects/Tables) for reporting you have no or little control over the resulting SQL Query.
But: You could put that query in an View or Stored Procedure and map that View/Proc with an OR Mapper. You can optimize your queries and you can use all features of your Application Framework.
Unless you're dealing with objects, an ORM is not necessary. It sounds like your friend simply needs to generate reports, in which case pure SQL is just fine so long as he knows what he's doing (e.g. avoiding SQL injection issues).
ORM stands for "Object-Relational Mapping". If you don't have the "O" (objects), then it's probably not a good fit for your app. Where ORMs really shine is in persisting objects to the database and loading them from a database.
ORM stands for Object Relational Mapping - but looking at the query your friend seems to be wanting a pretty specific table of sums and other items... I've not used Ruby's Sequel, but I've used Hibernate, and Python's SQLAlchemy (for Django/Turbogears) and while you can do these sorts of queries, I don't believe that is their strength.
The power of ORM comes from being able to finding Foo->Bar object relationships, say you want all the Bar objects for Foo's field greater then X... That sort of thing. Therefore I would not classify an ORM as a "good" solution, though moving to a real programming language like Ruby and doing the SQL through it instead of Excel... that in itself is a win.
Just my 2 cents.
In a situation like that, I'd probably write them by hand or use a View (if the DB you're using supports views)
ORM's are used when you have Objects (Business Objects). I am therefore assuming that you have an application with which you creating and Managing the Business Objects that are ultimately saved into the database. If you have then you have almost definitely got some representation of the relationships and probably many of the calculations you are going to use in reports. The problem with using SQL to directly access your database for reports is simply maintainability.
You typically put a lot of effort into ensuring that your Business Objects hide any details of their database. You implement business rules and do common calculations in your Business Objects. Build a common language for all members of the team etc etc. You then use an ORM to map to the database and use Habanero or NHibernate or something like that to do this. This is all great. We do this all in the name of Maintainability and is great. You can migrate your application change your design etc etc.
You now go and write SQL to run reports over time you have hundreds of report. Firstly they often duplicate logic you already have in your BusinessObjects (Usually without any tests) and even worse Bham Damb sorry maintainability is now stuffed forget about moving a that field from one table to another forget about splitting that table into two changing that relationship etc you have a number of reports that are going to break unexpectedly.
The problem with quering through your Domain Objects/Business Objects is simply one of performance.
In summary if you are using Domain Driven Design or Business Object concepts try to use these for reports. (You will probably run directly from DB using SQL or stored procs for performance reasons but try limit these use your Business Objects first and then use SQL).
The other option of course is using a separate reporting database (Like some of the BI concepts) The mapping from your transactional DB to your reporting DB is therefore in one place and easily changeable in cases where you want to change your design.
Domain Objects (Business Objects) and ORMs have all the knowledge to allow you to start building high performing queries that run directly on the Database while using the Domain Terminology. Lets hope that these continue to evolve to a point where this is a reality.
Until then if you are using Business Objects in your application try use them for Reporting when performance is an issue resort to SQL.