I need to store objects in separate tables. I need to know what tables are used for what object and to avoid name collision I prefix table names with an unique UUID so I can associate each object to its tables.
The issue there is I end up with pretty long identifiers, potentially breaking the 64-character length constraint of MariaDB.
Is it possible to organize my database in a way I query something "bigger" than my table to get the tables of my object ? For example when writing JOIN statement you use tableName.columnName when duplicates can occur. Here I am looking for something like schemaName.tableName. I have not been able to find documentation on how to organize a MariaDB database in that fashion.
Related
Context
I have three tables in my SQL Server database: 1) School, 2) College, 3) University.
Then I have another table: Tags.
Each of the three tables (School, College, University) can have Tags associated with them. For which purpose I have three association tables: SchoolTags, CollegeTags, UniversityTags.
Problem
I am trying to create a user-defined function that will take the name of association table as parameter (i.e. 'SchoolTags') and the Id of the entity (school/college/university) and will return a list of tags associated with that entityId.
The issue I am having is I have got to join Tags with a table whose name will come in as parameter. For that I am creating a dynamic query. And we can not run dynamic queries in SQL Server user-defined functions.
Question
Any idea how can that be acheived?
Note: I want separate association tables as I have created and do not want to convert them into a generic association table and I do not want to add If-Else based on table names in my function so that if a new association table is created, I do not need to update my function.
I am using Microsoft SQL Server.
Whatever language you are using, you would probably use if:
begin
if table = 'school' then
begin
. . .
end;
else if table = 'college' then
. . .
end;
The exact syntax depends on the scripting language for the database you are using.
What you desire is impossible. You cannot pass a table name as a parameter to a UDF and use dynamic sql in the UDF to then create and execute a statement that is specific to the table passed as the argument. You already know that you have no choice but to use if-else statements in your UDF to achieve your goal - it is your pipe-dream of "never having to update (or verify) your code when the schema changes" (yes - I rephrased it to make your issue more obvious) that is a problem.
There are likely to be other ways of implementing some useful functionality - but I suggest that you are thinking too far ahead and trying to implement generic functions without a clear purpose. And that is a very difficult and trouble-prone path that requires sophisticated tsql skills.
And to re-iterate the prior responses, you have a schema problem. You purposely created three different entities - and now you want a common function to use with any of them. So before you spend much time on this particular aspect, you should take some time to think carefully about how you intend to use (i.e., write queries against) these tables. If you find yourself using unions frequently to combine these entities into a common resultset, then you have might have a mismatch between your actual business and your model (schema) of it.
Consider normalizing your database in related, logical groupings for one EducationInstitution table and one JoinEducTags table. Those tables sound like they maintain the same structure but of different typology and hence should be saved in one table with different Type field for School, College, University, etc.
Then, add necessary constraints, primary/foreign keys for the one-to-many relationship between all three sets:
You never want to keep restructuring your schema (i.e., add tables) for each new type. With this approach, your user-defined function would just need to receive value parameters not identifiers like tables to be run in dynamic querying. Finally, this approach scales better with efficient storage. And as you will see normalization saves on complex querying.
I am designing a database to contain a table reference, with a column type that is one of several predefined values (e.g., book, movie, magazine, etc.). I intend the range of possible values to expand over time (e.g. if I realize that I missed the academic_paper type, I want to be able to put that in).
The easiest solution would seem to be to simply store a string representing the type into the table. But this sounds like it would result in a lot of wasted space.
The other solution I thought of is creating a new table reference_types, which the type column references in its foreign key. This seems to have the added benefit of ensuring valid foreign keys (so that I won't accidentally mistype a "magzine" somewhere in my code), possible allow for faster queries for all media of a certain type (since integer comparisons should be much faster than string comparisons), but also slow my application down a bit as joins would be required whenever I need the reference type, and probably complicate logic because of those extra joins.
What are your thoughts on schema design for this problem?
Your second solution is the correct one. Create a secondary table to store your reference types and link them using a foreign key.
For further reading on this subject the search term you'd want to use is 'database normalisation'.
Create the reference_types table. And in your references table use integer and also add a reference_type_name field.
You can query the references table to get the integer key and print its name when needed without performing a join to the other table, and still use that table to perfom other operations, just keep both tables with equal type names.
I know it sonds redundant, but it's really the fastest way to do a simple query by int key and have it all together.
It depends, if you will want to add some other information to reference types, then use the second approach. If not, use the first one because it's faster and the information stored is only a string (you can always select unique to retrieve your types). Read this article for more info.
I would like to create a table called "NOTES". I was thinking this table would contain a "table_name" VARCHAR(100) which indicates what table put in the note, a "key" or multiple "key" columns representing the primary key values of the table that this note applies to and a "note" field VARCHAR(MAX). When other tables use this table they would supply THEIR primary key(s) and their "table_name" and get all the notes associated with the primary key(s) they supplied. The problem is that other tables might have 1, 2 or more PKs so I am looking for ideas on how I can design this...
What you're suggesting sounds a little convoluted to me. I would suggest something like this.
Notes
------
Id - PK
NoteTypeId - FK to NoteTypes.Id
NoteContent
NoteTypes
----------
Id - PK
Description - This could replace the "table_name" column you suggested
SomeOtherTable
--------------
Id - PK
...
Other Columns
...
NoteId - FK to Notes.Id
This would allow you to keep your data better normalized, but still get the relationships between data that you want. Note that this assumes a 1:1 relationship between rows in your other tables and Notes. If that relationship will be many to one, you'll need a cross table.
Have a look at this thread about database normalization
What is Normalisation (or Normalization)?
Additionally, you can check this resource to learn more about foreign keys
http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_foreignkey.asp
Instead of putting the other table name's and primary key's in this table, have the primary key of the NOTES table be NoteId. Create an FK in each other table that will make a note, and store the corresponding NoteId's in the other tables. Then you can simply join on NoteId from all of these other tables to the NOTES table.
As I understand your problem, you're attempting to "abstract" the auditing of multiple tables in a way that you might abstract a class in OOP.
While it's a great OOP design principle, it falls flat in databases for multiple reasons. Perhaps the largest single reason is that if you cannot envision it, neither will someone (even you) looking at it later have an easy time reassembling the data. Smaller that that though, is that while you tend to think of a table as a container and thus similar to an object, in reality they are implemented instances of this hypothetical container you are trying to put together and operate better if you treat them as such. By creating an audit table specific to a table or a subset of tables that share structural similarity and data similarity, you increase the performance of your database and you won't run in to strange trigger or select related issues later.
And you can't envision it not because you're not good at what you're doing, but rather, the structure is not conducive to database logging.
Instead, I would recommend that you create separate logging tables that manage the auditing of each table you want to audit or log. In fact, some fast google searches show many scripts already written to do much of this tasking for you: Example of one such search
You should create these individual tables and then if you want to be able to report on multiple table or even all tables at once, you can create a stored procedure (if you want to make queries based on criterion) or a view with an included SELECT statement that JOINs and/or UNIONs the tables you are interested in - in a fashion that makes sense to the report type. You'll still have to write new objects in to the view, but even with your original table design, you'd have to account for that.
Relationship tables mostly contain two columns: IDTABLE1, and IDTABLE2.
Only thing that seems to change between relationship tables is the names of those two columns, and table name.
Would it be better if we create one table Relationships and in this table we place 3 columns:
TABLE_NAME, IDTABLE1, IDTABLE2, and then use this table for all relationships?
Is this a good/acceptable solution in web/desktop application development? What would be downside of this?
Note:
Thank you all for feedback. I appreciate it.
But, I think you are taking it a bit too far... Every solution works until one point.
As data storage simple text file is good till certain point, than excel is better, than MS Access, than SQL Server, than...
To be honest, I haven't seen any argument that states why this solution is bad for small projects (with DB size of few GB).
It would be a monster of a table; it would also be cumbersome. Performance-wise, such a table would not be a great idea. Also, foreign keys are impossible to add to such a table. I really can't see a lot of advantages to such a solution.
Bad idea.
How would you enforce the foreign keys if IDTABLE1 could contain ids from any table at all?
To achieve acceptable performance on joins without a load of unnecessary IO to bring in completely unrelated rows you would need a composite index with leading column TABLE_NAME that basically ends up partitioning the table into sections anyway.
Obviously even with this pseudo partitioning going on you would still be wasting a lot of space in the table/indexes just repeating the table name for each row.
Isn't it a big IF that you're only going to store the 2 ID fields? If I have a StudentCourse (or better yet Enrollment) table that has StudentID & CourseID, but wouldn't EnrollmentDate go in this table as well since not all students enroll on the first day of class. Seems like a bad idea to add this column to an already bloated table where most records will be null.
The benefit of a single table could be a requirement that the application has the ability to allow user/admin to create these relationships with data (Similar to have a single lookup or reference list table) and avoid having to create a new table to address these User Created References. Needing dynamic querying may benefit as well. An application that requires such dynamic data structure requirements might be better suited for a schemaless or nosql database.
Is there a way to map one of the the columns contents of a MySQL table to an enum on another table in MySQL? I thought this would be a no brainer, but there doesn't seem to be any info that I can find on the subject.
Any advice or help on this matter would be cool and if it's not possible, does anyone know of an internal reason why it wouldn't be possible?
Best regards everyone :)
Gary
The enum type is handy as a one-off, but it doesn't scale well to multiple tables and isn't standard SQL either.
Best thing to do here is to use normal tables and relations:
Define a new table to hold the list of possible values; let's call it Master1
In the other two tables (let's call them Table1 and Table2), don't make the field an enum; just make it a normal field with a foreign key relation to Master1.
The foreign key relation will do the job of restricting to a list of possible values; and because foreign keys and relations are absolutely standard SQL, this approach will have other benefits - for example reporting tools can recognise the foreign key and understand how to use the related data.
If it doesn't do it, don't do it
Surely you just want a table of possible keys and then a foreign key mapping to that.
If you want a table with possible enum values and restrictions, go for groupings via another table or a groupid in the same table (if group members are unique).
Smells like table-stink though JOIN wise. Maybe best doing this in a stored procedure or in the app code and mapping it to a native value?