I need to leverage Customer Attributes in a Generic Inquiry. I devise most of my Generic Inquiries starting with raw SQL in Server Management Studio. I find it much easier to locate the data I need this way. However, I am having a terrible time figuring out how Attributes are tied to Customers. Attributes are added to a Customer Class, and then a customer is associated with a Customer Class. This allows any attributes available for that Customer Class to be modifiable for the Customer.
Using the database, I have found the following:
Individual Attribute objects are stored in the CSAttribute table
Options for the Attributes (such as combobox) are stored in the CSAttributeDetail table
Individual instances of each attribute are stored in the CSAnswers table
There is also a CSAttributeGroup table, which I believe relates CSAttributeDetail records to CSAttribute records.
So, one would expect the CSAnswers table to have a reference to the customer the answer is attached to... but it does not. This table is defined as:
CompanyID (PK, int, not null)
RefNoteID (PK, uniqueidentifier, not null)
AttributeID (PK, nvarchar(10), not null)
Value (nvarchar(255), null)
To add insult to injury, table names in the database do not always align 1-to-1 to what is available in a Generic Inquiry. For example, many fields that are available to ARInvoice in a GI are actually stored in the ARRegister table in the database. I suspect something very similar is going on for Attributes.
Can anyone point me in the right direction of locating how Attributes are associated to Customers at both the database level, and at the GI level?
Attributes are linked to the record with the RefNoteID field; it will match the NoteID of the other record (note that in your case it wouldn't be in the Customers table but in BAccount, which is a 1:1 join with Customers). You should rarely, if ever, need to directly reference the CSAnswers table. Internally, Acumatica will generate a set of virtual fields in the primary table that match the name of the attribute, suffixed with _Attributes:
Please note that you won't be able to reference the attribute in the "Conditions" tab, however you can filter by this column in the grid and create predefined filters.
I've made a number of GIs using Customer Attributes, the RefNoteID uniqueidentifier in the CSAnswers table relates to the NoteID uniqueidentifier on the Customer table, and the AttributeID is the specific Attribute. To get All attributes for a customer on multiple Rows join on just the RefNoteID, if you want specific attribute(s) add additional join conditions for each AttributeID.
Related
I am just started to learn about relational database. When I studied the database of online shopping websites, I found that many examples create a category table and added ID field to the category name. I don't know why they need to create a category table and use category ID as a foreign key to relate products table. What will happen if I remove the category table and add the category name directly to the products table?
What I think is a lot of cases that you want a website menu showing your categories. This menu allows people to view your categories (Men Clothing, Women Clothing, Kids, Accessories) and once they click it they can see the products relevant to them.
If you put the category name to the product, it is very hard for you to update your menu content as you need to loop, group the category in the product table. Also, it is harder to update the category name in product table as a category name could be in lots of product records,
Whereas if you have a category table, you just need to maintain the category table (view what you have in the category table and update DB record if you want your menu change).
In long term maintenance, category table is desired.
In a case I have come over that I would like an empty category which just to show in the website menu (a menu item which contains no product) which is not possible if I do not have a category table.
By inserting just the category name you may complete your POC but you need to understand what is Normalization and why it is needed.
First normal form (1NF) : An entity type is in 1NF when it contains no repeating groups of data.
Second normal form (2NF) : An entity type is in 2NF when it is in 1NF and when all of its non-key attributes are fully dependent on its primary key.
Third normal form (3NF) : An entity type is in 3NF when it is in 2NF and when all of its attributes are directly dependent on the primary key.
Source
What will happen if I remove the category table and add the category name directly to the products table?
Suppose you store the category with each product, and one day your boss tells you that you misspelled a category name. Which one?
"Theater" he says. Or did he say "theatre?" Which is correct? You check and find about "theater" and "theatre" are used close to evenly among the products that have either one.
So which spelling did your boss mean is the mistake, and which one is correct?
If you store the correct spelling in one place, in its own categories table, then you can be sure. You can correct it, and all the products that reference it will implicitly get the correction.
That's an argument for normalization, but keep in mind using an integer id is only a convention. It has nothing to do with normalization. You can use a string as a primary key of a table, and therefore you can use a string as a foreign key in a table that references it.
It's okay to use a non-integer for key columns. As long as there is one instance that stores the canonical value, it satisfies the goal of normalization -- that is to reduce data anomalies.
On my site user can make some items and those items goes in Items table.
Users can also follow each other and those data I store in Followings table.
Now I need one table that keep track of user activities, so I have created:
Users{UserId, Username, FirstName, LastName}
Items{ItemId, Title, CreatedByUserId}
Activity{ActivityId, ActivityTypeId, UserId, ItemId}
Here ItemId can be or ItemId from Items table or UserId from Users table.
Is this design good or there is better approach to do this?
Edit: I have added table structures. The point is that I wan't to add record to that Activity table every time when user create item or start to follow some user. So I can always track what user did on the site.
Here ItemId can be or ItemId from Items table or UserId from Users table.
This will prevent the DBMS from enforcing the foreign key. If you go down that route, better separate these fields (so you can make foreign keys towards their respective tables) and use a CHECK to ensure exactly one of them is non-NULL:
CHECK (
(ITEM_ID IS NOT NULL AND FOLLOWED_USER_ID IS NULL)
OR (ITEM_ID IS NULL AND FOLLOWED_USER_ID IS NOT NULL)
)
The ACTIVITY PK is crafted so it is easy to query for a "timeline" of a specific user and is friendly to clustering.
(You may or may not need ACTIVITY.TYPE depending on what exactly you want to track.)
The alternative would be to have a separate table for each kind of activity:
(And you could add a TYPE field in FOLLOW_ACTIVITY to distinguish between "follow" and "unfollow".)
Another alternative would be to inherit users and items from a common parent "class" and then link to that class:
This design is probably an overkill in this case, but could be useful if you later add many other kinds of objects that could be tracked.
Items{ItemID,descr,UserIDCreator,date-time}
User{UserID,descr}
Followings{UserIDFollowed,UserIDFollower,date-time}
now if you wont all items created by eser use user code on items
the same on followings I add date-time for chrono select
You can create atriggered table or a view this depends on cardinality of data
If the same object can be share between users
Items{ItemID,descr,}
UserItems{UserID,descr,ItemId,date-time}
User{UserID,descr}
Followings{UserIDFollowed,UserIDFollower,date-time}
I hope to be useful
I am supposed to be shipping out a box with variable contents and tracking this in a database. All of my items (the contents of a box) are different types and require different tables to track their respective pieces of information, although each item type has the same length serial number (i.e. PK are the same datatype). And I have a Boxes table.
So each item has a table (~7 tables) plus the box table. I want to create a BoxContents table. I tried to make a many-to-many relationship intermediate table with two columns: one for BoxID and one for ItemBarcode, where BoxID is a FK to the PK on the Boxes table and the ItemBarcode is a FK to each of the PKs on the Items tables (i.e. I tried to link multiple tables to the same column). Unsurprisingly this didn't work. I tried to insert an item and the FK constraint was violated on all but one of the ItemBarcode relationships.
How can I construct my relationships to link several types of items to one box in one table? Is this a logical approach? Do you need more information?
You need a category hierarchy (aka. class hierarchy, subtype hierarchy, inheritance hierarchy...):
There are 3 main strategies for implementing a category hierarchy. If you choose "all classes in one table" or "class per table", then no matter how many kinds of items you have, you only need one "link" table to implement the many-to-many relationship.
My first choice, if the ItemBarcode values are truly unique, would be to:
EDIT: Added description of required triggers.
Add triggers to enforce the barcode uniqueness.
(An insert/update trigger on each item table needs to verify that all (newly) assigned barcodes do not appear in other item tables.)
Use a single BoxId/ItemBarcode table without a FK relation on the barcode side, but with triggers to ensure it remains valid.
(An insert/update trigger on the association table needs to verify that the barcodes exist in the item tables. A delete trigger on each item table needs to prevent, or cascade, deletion of items that are in the association table. An update trigger on the item tables needs to update and changed barcodes in the association table. This last may be integrated into the insert/update trigger in the prior bullet.)
Consider using a view of all items to access common data by ItemBarcode.
My second choice would be n BoxId/ItemBarcode tables for the n item types. Straightforward, but a bit busy. It makes adding a new item type messier than it needs to be.
I would not use a BoxId/ItemTypeId/ItemBarcode table. It denormalizes the data by associating the ItemTypeId and ItemBarcode again, it doesn't allow the use of a FK on the barcode side, and it still requires triggers to ensure integrity.
Don't be afraid of triggers. There are some problems that they can address quite effectively.
Relational databases are not good with this kind of problem. Your basic design is correct - an association table for FKs between the tables.
Your choices are:
Have multiple columns in your association table - one for for each item table
Merge the item data into one item table
I would go option 2.
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
I want to create a product catalog that allows for intricate details on each of the product types in the catalog. The product types have vastly different data associated with them; some with only generic data, some with a few extra fields of data, some with many fields that are specific to that product type. I need to easily add new product types to the system and respect their configuration, and I'd love tips on how to design the data model for these products as well as how to handle persistence and retrieval.
Some products will be very generic and I plan to use a common UI for editing those products. The products that have extensible configuration associated with them will get new views (and controllers) created for their editing. I expect all custom products to have their own model defined but to share a common base class. The base class would represent the generic product that has no custom fields.
Example products that need to be handled:
Generic product
Description
Light Bulb
Description
Type (with an enum of florescent, incandescent, halogen, led)
Wattage
Style (enum of flood, spot, etc.)
Refrigerator
Description
Make
Model
Style (with an enum in the domain model)
Water Filter information
Part number
Description
I expect to use MEF for discovering what product types are available in the system. I plan to create assemblies that contain product type models, views, and controllers, drop those assemblies into the bin, and have the application discover the new product types, and show them in the navigation.
Using SQL Server 2008, what would be the best way to store products of these various types, allowing for new types to be added without having to grow the database schema?
When retrieving data from the database, what's the best way to translate these polymorphic entities into their correct domain models?
Updates and Clarifications
To avoid the Inner Platform Effect, if there is a database table for every product type (to store the products of that type), then I still need a way to retrieve all products that spans product types. How would that be achieved?
I talked with Nikhilk in more detail about his SharePoint reference. Specifically, he was talking about this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998711.aspx. It actually seems pretty attractive. No need to parse XML; and there is some indexing that could be done allowing for simple and fast queries over the data. For instance, I could say "find all 75-watt light bulbs" by knowing that the first int column in the row is the wattage when the row represents a light bulb. Something (NHibernate?) in the app tier would define the mapping from the product type to the userdata schema.
Voted down the schema that has the Property Table because this could lead to lots of rows per product. This could lead to index difficulties, plus all queries would have to essentially pivot the data.
Use a Sharepoint-style UserData table, that has a set of string columns, a set of int columns, etc. and a Type column.
Then you have a list of types table that specifies the schema for each type - its properties, and the specific columns they map to in the UserData table.
With things like Azure and other utility computing storage you don't even need to define a table. Every store object is basically a dictionary.
I think you need to go with a data model like --
Product Table
ProductId (PK)
ProductName
Details
Property Table
PropertyId (PK)
ProductId (FK)
ParentPropertyId (FK - Self referenced to categorize properties)
PropertyName
PropertyValue
PropertyValueTypeId
Property Value Lookup Table
PropertyValueLookupId (PK)
PropertyId (FK)
LookupValue
And then have a dynamic view based on this. You could use the PropertyValueTypeId coloumn to identify the type, using a convention, like (0- string, 1-integer, 2-float, 3-image etc) - But ultimately you can store everything untyped only. You could also use this column to select the control template to render the corresponding property to the user.
You can use the Value lookup table to keep lookups for a specific property (so that user can choose it from a list)
Summarizing lets look at the options under consideration for storing product information:
1) some xml format in the database
2) similar to the post above about having x number of type defined columns (sharepoint approach)
3) via generic table with name and type definitions stored in lookup table and values in secondary table with columns id, propertyid, value (similar to #2 however this approach would provide unlimited property information
4) some hybrid of the above option where product table would have x common columns (for storage of properties common with all products) with y user defined columns (this could be m of integer type and n of varchar types). This may be taking the best of #2 and a normalzied structure as if you knew all the properties of all products. You would be getting the best sql performance for the properties that you use the most (probably those that are common across all products) while still allowing custom columns for specific properties with each product.
Are there other options? In my opinion I would consider 4 above as the best hybrid of the combinations.
dave
Put as much of the shared anticipated structure in traditional normalized 3NF model, then augment with XML columns as appropriate.
I don't see MEF (or any other ORM) being able to do all this transparently.
I think you should avoid the Inner Platform Effect and actually build tables for your specialized entities. You'll be writing specific code to manage them so why not have proper backing tables too?
It will make your deployment slightly harder - drop in an assembly and run a script - but it will probably save you a lot of pain in the long run.
Jeff,
we currently use a XML field in the Products table to handle all product-specific data. So our Products table has a few common fields that all products share, an XML which contains whatever a particular product needs additionally, and a few computed fields that grab into the XML and surface some of the frequently queried fields as "virtual" fields on the Products table (e.g. "Style" would be set to whatever the current product defines, or NULL, if the product doesn't have a Style property).
So far, we've been quite flexible with that approach - if you create some decent XSD schemas for your XML, you can even create C# proxy classes for these fields.
Works nicely for us - joining the best of both the relational and XML worlds.
Marc