I have a table called user. Now I am building an app where a user can have many users as friends. So I think I should create a new table called friends_list and implement one-to-many relationship where (user) is one and (friends_list) is many. Then to get the list of friends the user has, I could do select * from friends where userId = XXXx.
Is this the best approach? Or is there another better way to create a relationship with the same table?
Your approach is the best approach. You want to represent an n-m relationship (one user has many friends and vice versa).
There are some considerations. If "friendship" is symmetric (that is A friends B automatically means that B friends A), then you probably want to include both in the table when one is inserted. You may also want to prevent a user from self-friending.
If you want to retrieve user's friends as a list, you can do so using a string concatenation function. In Standard SQL, this is:
select listagg(friendid, ',') within group (order by friendid) as friendids
from friends
where userid = XXX;
Different databases have different function names for listagg().
An approach, and clearly NOT the best, would be to use an extra column to store a comma separated value of friend's user_ids.
If the answer to the question "who are my friends?" would not be too difficult to get, you'll need to rely on LIKE %XXXx% conditions and shouldnt expect very fast response times.
Another drawback would be some complexity with the relationship maintenance while editing the friend list.
Therefore, the two tables schema is both the most semantically correct and reliable one.
Related
I am having difficulty querying for possible relationships in a Many:Many scenario.
I present my schema:
What I do know how to query with this schema is:
All Bands that a given User belongs to.
All Users that belong to a given Band.
What I am trying to do is:
Get all Band Members across all Bands that a given User belongs to.
ie, say I am in 5 bands, I want to know who all of my bandmates are.
My first questions are:
Is there a name for this type of query? Where I am more interested in the joined relationships than what I am joined to (just saying that made me want to put this whole system into a Graph DB :/ )? I'd like to learn proper terminology to help me google for problems down the road.
Is this a terrible idea in RDBMS land in general? I feel like this should be a common use case but I want to know if I'm totally approaching this wrong.
To recap:
I am looking to query the above schema with the expected output being one row per User as Band Members that a given User shares a Band with.
Terminology
Your terminology seems to be correct - "many to many", often written as "many:many" with a colon. Sometimes the middle table (band_members) is called the "bridge table".
You can probably drop band_members.id, since the two foreign keys also make up a composite primary key (and the primary key can actually be defined that way, since normally a User cannot be a member of the same Band twice. The only exception to that is if a User could have more than one role in the same Band).
Solution
On the surface of it, this sounds easy - we can see the relationships of the tables, and one would normally just use an INNER JOIN between them. There are three tables, so that would be two joins.
However, we have to conceptualise the problem correctly first. The problem we have is that the join between Users and Band Members (user ID) is actually to be used for two things:
which User is in what Band
filtering by User
So to do this we need to introduce one table with multiple purposes:
SELECT
Users.first_name, Users.last_name
FROM Users
INNER JOIN Band_Members Band_Members1 ON (Band_Members1.user_id = Users.Id)
INNER JOIN Band_Members Band_Members2 ON (Band_Members1.band_id = Band_Members2.band_id)
WHERE
Band_Members2.user_id = 1
You can see here that I have joined Band_Members twice, and when one does that, one has to alias them differently, so they can be separately referenced. The first instance does the obvious join between the Users table and the bridge table, and the second one does a link between "Users who are in Bands" and "Bands that I am in".
Of course, this solution requires that you know your User ID. If you had wanted to do a similar query but filter based on your name, then you would have to join to another (re-aliased) copy of the User table, so that you can differentiate between the two different purposes: "Users who are in bands" and "your User".
I have 4 tables which were auto generated for me:
User
Challenge
Exercise
Challenge_Exercise
One User may have many Challenges, and one Challenge will have many Exercises.
What I noticed is that the Challenge table has a reference to it's parent User (called user_id) but Exercise do not have a reference in it's table to Challenge; their relation is stored in Challenge_Exercise as Challenge_id and exercise_id.
My question is, how would I take out every Exercise that is linked to a specific user? For instance User with id = 1?
SELECT *
FROM excerise,
challenge_excerise,
challenge
WHERE challenge.user_id = 1
AND challenge_excerise.challenge_id = challenge.id
AND challenge_excerise.exercise_id = excercise.id
What I'm doing here is a join, you could also explicitly do it with inner joins (google it if you wanna know more).
This table is needed because you have a many to many relationship, which means each challenge can have multiple exercises, but also each exercise can have multiple challenges. It's a standard to make an extra table then, so you don't have redundant data, this table is often called junction table.
If you want background just google it, there are tons of data to this topic.
I am starting a new Project for a website based on "Talents" - for example:
Models
Actors
Singers
Dancers
Musicians
The way I propose to do this is that each of these talents will have its own table and include a user_id field to map the record to a specific user.
Any user who signs up on the website can create a profile for one or more of these talents. A talent can have sub-talents, for example an actor can be a tv actor or a theatre actor or a voiceover actor.
So for example I have User A - he is a Model (Catwalk Model) and an Actor (TV actor, Theatre actor, Voiceover actor).
My questions are:
Do I need to create separate tables to store sub-talents of this user?
How should I perform the lookups of the top-level talents for this user? I.e. in the user table should there be fields for the ID of each talent? Or should I perform a lookup in each top-level talent table to see if that user_id exists in there?
Anything else I should be aware of?
before answering your questions... i think that user_id should not be in the Talents table... the main idea here is that "for 1 talent you have many users, and for one user you have multiple talent".. so the relation should be NxN, you'll need an intermediary table
see: many to many
now
Do I need to create seperate tables to store sub-talents of this
user?
if you want to do something dynamic (add or remove subtalents) you can use a recursive relationship. That is a table that is related to itself
TABLE TALENT
-------------
id PK
label
parent_id PK FK (a foreign key to table Talent)
see : recursive associations
How should I perform the lookups of the top-level talents for this
user? I.e. in the user table should
there be fields for the ID of each
talent? Or should I perform a lookup
in each top-level talent table to see
if that user_id exists in there?
if you're using the model before, it could be a nightmare to make queries, because your table Talents is now a TREE that can contain multiple levels.. you might want to restrict yourself to a certain number of levels that you want in your Talent's table i guess two is enough.. that way your queries will be easier
Anything else I should be aware of?
when using recursive relations... the foreign key should alow nulls because the top levels talents wont have a parent_id...
Good luck! :)
EDIT: ok.. i've created the model.. to explain it better
Edit Second model (in the shape of a Christmas tree =D ) Note that the relation between Model & Talent and Actor & Talent is a 1x1 relation, there are different ways to do that (the same link on the comments)
to find if user has talents.. join the three tables on the query =)
hope this helps
You should have one table that has everything about the user (name, dob, any other information about the user). You should have one table that has everything about talents (id, talentName, TopLevelTalentID (to store the "sub" talents put a reference to the "Parent" talent)). You should have a third table for the many to many relationship between users and talents: UserTalents which stores the UserID and the TalentID.
Here's an article that explains how to get to 3rd NF:
http://www.deeptraining.com/litwin/dbdesign/FundamentalsOfRelationalDatabaseDesign.aspx
This is a good question to show some of the differences and similarities between object oriented thinking and relational modelling.
First of all there are no strict rules regarding creating the tables, it depends on the problem space you are trying to model (however, having a field for each of the tables is not necessary at all and constitutes a design fault - mainly because it is inflexible and hard to query).
For example perfectly acceptable design in this case is to have tables
Names (Name, Email, Bio)
Talents (TalentType references TalentTypes, Email references Names)
TalentTypes (TalentType, Description, Parent references TalentTypes)
The above design would allow you to have hierarchical TalentTypes and also to keep track which names have which talents, you would have a single table from which you could get all names (to avoid registering duplicates), you have a single table from which you could get a list of talents and you can add new talent types and/or subtypes easily.
If you really need to store some special fileds on each of the talent types you can still add these as tables that reference general talents table.
As an illustration
Models (Email references Talents, ModelingSalary) -- with a check constraint that talents contain a record with modelling talent type
Do notice that this is only an illustration, it might be sensible to have Salary in the Talents table and not to have tables for specific talents.
If you do end up with tables for specific talents in a sense you can look at Talents table as sort of a class from which a particular talent or sub-talent inherits properties.
ok sorry for the incorrect answer.. this is a different approach.
The way i see it, a user can have multiple occupations (Actor, Model, Musician, etc.) Usually what i do is think in objects first then translate it into tables. In P.O.O. you'd have a class User and subclasses Actor, Model, etc. each one of them could also have subclasses like TvActor, VoiceOverActor... in a DB you'd have a table for each talent and subtalent, all of them share the same primary key (the id of the user) so if the user 4 is and Actor and a Model, you would have one registry on the Actor's Table and another on the Model Table, both with id=4
As you can see, storing is easy.. the complicated part is to retrieve the info. That's because databases dont have the notion of inheritance (i think mysql has but i haven't tried it).. so if you want to now the subclases of the user 4, i see three options:
multiple SELECTs for each talent and subtalent table that you have, asking if their id is 4.
SELECT * FROM Actor WHERE id=4;SELECT * FROM TvActor WHERE id=4;
Make a big query joining all talent and subtalent table on a left join
SELECT * from User LEFT JOIN Actor ON User.id=Actor.id LEFT JOIN TvActor ON User.id=TvActor.id LEFT JOIN... WHERE User.id=4;
create a Talents table in a NxN relation with User to store a reference of each talent and subtalents that the User has, so you wont have to ask all of the tables. You'd have to make a query on the Talents table to find out what tables you'll need to ask on a second query.
Each one of these three options have their pros and cons.. maybe there's another one =)
Good Luck
PS: ahh i found another option here or maybe it's just the second option improved
So I know the convention for naming M-M relationship tables in SQL is to have something like so:
For tables User and Data the relationship table would be called
UserData
User_Data
or something similar (from here)
What happens then if you need to have multiple relationships between User and Data, representing each in its own table? I have a site I'm working on where I have two primary items and multiple independent M-M relationships between them. I know I could just use a single relationship table and have a field which determines the relationship type, but I'm not sure whether this is a good solution. Assuming I don't go that route, what naming convention should I follow to work around my original problem?
To make it more clear, say my site is an auction site (it isn't but the principle is similar). I have registered users and I have items, a user does not have to be registered to post an item but they do need to be to do anything else. I have table User which has info on registered users and Items which has info on posted items. Now a user can bid on an item, but they can also report a item (spam, etc.), both of these are M-M relationships. All that happens when either event occurs is that an email is generated, in my scenario I have no reason to keep track of the actual "report" or "bid" other than to know who bid/reported on what.
I think you should name tables after their function. Lets say we have Cars and People tables. Car has owners and car has assigned drivers. Driver can have more than one car. One of the tables you could call CarsDrivers, second CarsOwners.
EDIT
In your situation I think you should have two tables: AuctionsBids and AuctionsReports. I believe that report requires additional dictinary (spam, illegal item,...) and bid requires other parameters like price, bid date. So having two tables is justified. You will propably be more often accessing bids than reports. Sending email will be slightly more complicated then when this data is stored in one table, but it is not really a big problem.
I don't really see this as a true M-M mapping table. Those usually are JUST a mapping. From your example most of these will have additional information as well. For example, a table of bids, which would have a User and an Item, will probably have info on what the bid was, when it was placed, etc. I would call this table... wait for it... Bids.
For reporting items you might want what was offensive about it, when it was placed, etc. Call this table OffenseReports or something.
You can name tables whatever you want. I would just name them something that makes sense. I think the convention of naming them Table1Table2 is just because sometimes the relationships don't make alot of sense to an outside observer.
There's no official or unofficial convention on relations or tables names. You can name them as you want, the way you like.
If you have multiple user_data relationships with the same keys that makes absolutely no sense. If you have different keys, name the relation in a descriptive way like: stores_products_manufacturers or stores_products_paymentMethods
I think you're only confused because the join tables are currently simple. Once you add more information, I think it will be obvious that you should append a functional suffix. For example:
Table User
UserID
EmailAddress
Table Item
ItemID
ItemDescription
Table UserItem_SpamReport
UserID
ItemID
ReportDate
Table UserItem_Post
UserID -- can be (NULL, -1, '', ...)
ItemID
PostDate
Table UserItem_Bid
UserId
ItemId
BidDate
BidAmount
Then the relation will have a Role. For instance a stock has 2 companies associated: an issuer and a buyer. The relationship is defined by the role the parent and child play to each other.
You could either put each role in a separate table that you name with the role (IE Stock_Issuer, Stock_Buyer etc, both have a relationship one - many to company - stock)
The stock example is pretty fixed, so two tables would be fine. When there are multiple types of relations possible and you can't foresee them now, normalizing it into a relationtype column would seem the better option.
This also depends on the quality of the developers having to work with your model. The column approach is a bit more abstract... but if they don't get it maybe they'd better stay away from databases altogether..
Both will work fine I guess.
Good luck, GJ
GJ
In an application where users can belong to multiple groups, I'm currently storing their groups in a column called groups as a binary. Every four bytes is a 32 bit integer which is the GroupID. However, this means that to enumerate all the users in a group I have to programatically select all users, and manually find out if they contain that group.
Another method was to use a unicode string, where each character is the integer denoting a group, and this makes searching easy, but is a bit of a fudge.
Another method is to create a separate table, linking users to groups. One column called UserID and another called GroupID.
Which of these ways would be the best to do it? Or is there a better way?
You have a many-to-many relationship between users and groups. This calls for a separate table to combine users with groups:
User: (UserId[PrimaryKey], UserName etc.)
Group: (GroupId[PrimaryKey], GroupName etc.)
UserInGroup: (UserId[ForeignKey], GroupId[ForeignKey])
To find all users in a given group, you just say:
select * from User join UserInGroup on UserId Where GroupId=<the GroupId you want>
Rule of thumb: If you feel like you need to encode multiple values in the same field, you probably need a foreign key to a separate table. Your tricks with byte-blocks or Unicode chars are just clever tricks to encode multiple values in one field. Database design should not use clever tricks - save that for application code ;-)
I'd definitely go for the separate table - certainly the best relational view of data. If you have indexes on both UserID and GroupID you have a quick way of getting users per group and groups per user.
The more standard, usable and comprehensible way is the join table. It's easily supported by many ORMs, in addition to being reasonably performant for most cases. Only enter in "clever" ways if you have a reason to, say a million of users and having to answer that question every half a second.
I would make 3 tables. users, groups and usersgroups which is used as cross-reference table to link users and groups. In usersgroups table I would add userId and groupId columns and make them as primary key. BTW. What naming conventions there are to name those xref tables?
It depends what you're trying to do, but if your database supports it, you might consider using roles. The advantage of this is that the database provides security around roles, and you don't have to create any tables.