I am modeling a new database and I have a problem to keep my db scheme generic in order to make it able to be updated in the future.
I have drawn a simple scheme which reflects the actual problem, let's say that I have an employee table which has all the common info from all employees. In addition, there are one table per possible assignment which all needs an employee with its custom columns. The business logic allows an employee to have different assignments.
What is the best way to bind each pk of different assignment tables into another table (in this case the Notification table)?
Related
I'm taking a DBMS course and I need to design and build my own DB. I have a database for a hospital where doctors,nurses,support staff etc are in a ISA relationship to an Employee entity with the rest of the data like the name, address , salary and the rest of the employee data.
Designing a form, I want to be able to add an employee with all of their data in one form.
Is there a way to do a "conditional table" of sorts where if i select "doctor" from a drop-down i get to add to the doctor table too, and same for the rest of the entities under the ISA relationship?
Thx!
As a general rule, when dealing with data, you do NOT flip or switch tables for a given form or relatonal database design.
So, for example. If I have a table of customers. Well, now if I want to mark some of the customers as plumbers, and others as doctors? I don't create two tables.
All I would do is add ONE column to that customers table and it would simply allow me to set the type of customer. The reason for this design is "many" but some significant reasons are:
For each new type of customer, you would not create a new table. Worse, all of the forms, the reports, the SQL, the code you write? Well, all of that code would have to be modified EACH time you create a new table. So, you SIMPLY cannot adopt a design in which the concept of changing a table is part of that process.
Forms are bound to ONE table. For related data, you in most cases will use a sub form.
So, think of even a accounting system. They can have huge numbers of customers, and as a result, you can "query" that table to give you all customers. Or you might ask how many accounting firms are in the customer list. Or make a report that summeries by customer type a "count" of each type of customer.
So, buidling forms, or reports? They cannot on the fly "change" the tables they are using.
So, in place of a tables called:
SalesJan
SalesFeb
SalesMar
etc.
Well, now you can't query sales from Jan to mar, because the data is in different tables.
So, what you do is have ONE table called "sales", and you add ONE column of the date. Now, at the start of each new month, you don't have to create a new table.
Now, of course in some cases it makes sense to create a separate table. For example, a table of customers, and a table of employees in a database is just fine. It makes sense in this case to use two tables, since the information about a customer and what they can do and the kind of information is VERY different then how you would deal with employees.
So, with above? Well, if I need to print mailing labels for all customers and all employees? That would require two different reports. And very likely the table structure for the two tables is different.
Bottom line:
If you working on design or form or report? And you needing to try and change the table that the form/report/code etc is going to operate on? This is a sign that your design approach has gone complete off the rails and is the wrong design.
So, in the case of doctors, nurses etc.? Well, they are all hospital staff, and MOST of the basic information about such employees will be common, much the same, and thus a SINGLE table of "employees" makes the most sense. You would only need a nice "employee type" combo box on that one form, and thus you can add/enter/edit/search any employee in that one table.
The fact that you "want to search" for a employee show that all these people "are" employees and thus belong in one table. And the basic information about all employees is going to be the same anyway. If you find you are attempting to create a new table but with near identical structures over and over, then just like a new table for each month sales, or a new table for each new kind of employee? Simply add the "one" column that allows you to make that distinguish, and not a whole new table.
Now one COULD even attempt to put patients in the same table, but then again, dealing with patents as opposed employees is a considerable different kind of "thing".
So employees are employees - even different kinds. (manager, cleaning staff etc.).
And patients are patients - even different kinds (long term care, emergency etc.).
I'm designing a database from scratch and I'm wondering if the way I'm using one-to-one relationships is correct.
Imagine I have a table that needs the columns city and country_id, the first being alphanumeric and the second being a foreign key to another table. Should I place these in a locations table and use a one-to-one relationship?
Another example:
I have a table with the factory information of a device like the serial number and other fields. These will later be used to register a device in another table. Of course this is a one-to-one relationship, but should the columns of the first table be in the second table instead? Have in mind that the registrations table has another 4-5 columns.
I've read a lot of times that these relationships can often be omitted. However, I like the separation of concerns that creating a new table can give, in some cases.
Thanks in advance!
This may be a duplicate question, e.g. see:
SQL one to one relationship vs. single table
There's no perfect answer to this question as it depends on use case, but here's the rule of thumb I recommend abiding by: if you can already envision the potential need for separate tables, then I would err on the side of splitting them and using a 1:1 relationship. For example, imagine in the future that you want to have some kind of one-to-many relationship between some new table and the country table, or between some new table and the device table. In these cases you probably don't want city information mixed up with the former, and you probably don't want device registration information mixed up with the latter. By keeping your DB schema normalized, you can better future-proof it and you can mitigate the need for (likely extremely painful) updates that may have otherwise cropped up.
I'm looking at this company's database design, and would like to know the purpose of their design, ie store relationship in one table and the data in another, why do this?
They have this,
EMPLOYEE
Id (PK)
DepartmentId
EMPLOYEE_DATA
EmployeeId (PK)
First Name
Last Name
Position
etc...
Rather than this...
EMPLOYEE
Id (PK)
DepartmentId
First Name
Last Name
Position
etc...
...OR this...(employee can belong to many departments)
EMPLOYEE
Id (PK)
First Name
Last Name
etc...
EMPLOYEE_DEPARTMENT
Id
EmployeeId
DepartmentId
Position
That's a link table, or join table, or cross table.. lots of different names.
How would you assign an employee to two different departments with your design? You can't. You can only assign them to one.
With their design, they can assign the same ID to multiple departments by creating multiple records with the employee ID and different department ID's.
EDIT:
You need to be more specific about what you're asking. Your first question seemed to be asking what the purpose of mapping table was. Then you changed it, then you changed it again.. none of which makes much sense.
It seems now that you are asking what the better design is, which is a totally different question than what you originally asked. Please state specifically what question you want answered so we don't have to guess.
EDIT2:
Upon re-reading, if this is the actual design, then no.. It does not support multiple department id's. Such a design makes little sense, except for one situation. If the original design did not include a department, this would allow them to add a department ID without modifying the original EMPLOYEE_DATA table.
They may not have wanted to update legacy code to support the Employee id, so they added it this way.
Purpose of design is determined by business rules.
Business rules dictate entity (logical model perspective) / table (physical model perspective) design. No design is "bad" if it is built according to the requirements that were determined based on business rules. Those rules can however change over time -- foreseeing such changes and building to accommodate/future-proof the data model can really save time, effort and ultimately money.
The first and third example are the same -- the third example has an extraneous column (EMPLOYEE_DEPARTMENT.id). ORMs don't like composite keys, so a single column is used in place of.
The second example is fine if:
employees will never work for more than one department
there's no need for historical department tracking
Conclusion:
The first/third example is more realistic for the majority of real-world situations, and can be easily customized to provide more value without major impact (re-writing entire table structure). It uses what is most commonly referred to as a many-to-many relationship to allow many employees to relate to many departments.
If an employee can be in more than one department, then you would need a mapping table but I'd do it like the following:
EMPLOYEE
Id (PK)
First Name
Last Name
DEPARTMENT
Id (PK)
Name
EMPLOYEE_DEPARTMENT
EmployeeId_fk (PK)
DepartmentId_fk (PK)
Position
This would allow for multiple positions in multiple departments.
You would do this if an employee can be a member of multiple departments. With the latter table, each employee can only belong to one department.
The only remotely good reason for doing this is to implement an extension model where the master table identifying unique customers does not include all the data for customers that is not always necessary. Instead, you create one core table with the core employee data and and extension table with all the supplementary fields. I've seen people take this approach to avoid creating large tables with many columns that are rarely needed. However, in my experience it's typically premature optimization, and I wouldn't recommend it.
In contrast to many responses, the model included does not support multiple departments per employee - it is not a many to many mapping approach.
I'm reading Pro JPA 2. The book talks begins by talking about ORM in the first few pages.
It talks about mapping a single Java class named Employee with the following instance variables - id,name,startDate, salary.
It then goes on to the issue of how this class can be represented in a relational database and suggests the following scheme.
table A: emp
id - primary key
startDate
table B: emp_sal
id - primary key in this table, which is also a foreign key referencing the 'id' column in table A.
It thus seems to suggest that persisting an Employee instance to the database would require operations on two(multiple) tables.
Should the Employee class have an instance variable 'salary' in the first place?
I think it should possibly belong to a separate class (Class salary maybe?) representing salary and thus the example doesn't seem very intuitive.
What am I missing here?
First, the author explains that there are multiples ways to represent a class in a database: sometimes the mapping of a class to a table is straightforward, sometimes you don't have a direct correspondence between attributes and columns, sometimes a single class is represented by multiples tables:
In scenario (C), the EMP table has
been split so that the salary
information is stored in a separate
EMP_SAL table. This allows the
database administrator to restrict
SELECT access on salary information to
those users who genuinely require it.
With such a mapping, even a single
store operation for the Employee class
now requires inserts or updates to two
different tables.
So even storing the data from a single class in a database can be a challenging exercise.
Then, he describes how relationships are different. At the object level model, you traverse objects via their relations. At the relational model level, you use foreign keys and joins (sometimes via a join table that doesn't even exist at the object model level).
Inheritance is another "problem" and can be "simulated" in various ways at the relational model level: you can map an entire hierarchy into a single table, you can map each concrete class to its own table, you can map each class to its own table.
In other words, there is no direct and unique correspondence between an object model and a relational model. Both rely on different paradigms and the fit is not perfect. The difference between both is known as the impedance mismatch, which is something ORM have to deal with (allowing the mapping between an object model and the many possible representations in a relation model). And this is what the whole section you're reading is about. This is also what you missed :)
I have to add functionality to an existing application and I've run into a data situation that I'm not sure how to model. I am being restricted to the creation of new tables and code. If I need to alter the existing structure I think my client may reject the proposal.. although if its the only way to get it right this is what I will have to do.
I have an Item table that can me link to any number of tables, and these tables may increase over time. The Item can only me linked to one other table, but the record in the other table may have many items linked to it.
Examples of the tables/entities being linked to are Person, Vehicle, Building, Office. These are all separate tables.
Example of Items are Pen, Stapler, Cushion, Tyre, A4 Paper, Plastic Bag, Poster, Decoration"
For instance a Poster may be allocated to a Person or Office or Building. In the future if they add a Conference Room table it may also be added to that.
My intital thoughts are:
Item
{
ID,
Name
}
LinkedItem
{
ItemID,
LinkedToTableName,
LinkedToID
}
The LinkedToTableName field will then allow me to identify the correct table to link to in my code.
I'm not overly happy with this solution, but I can't quite think of anything else. Please help! :)
Thanks!
It is not a good practice to store table names as column values. This is a bad hack.
There are two standard ways of doing what you are trying to do. The first is called single-table inheritance. This is easily understood by ORM tools but trades off some normalization. The idea is, that all of these entities - Person, Vehicle, whatever - are stored in the same table, often with several unused columns per entry, along with a discriminator field that identifies what type the entity is.
The discriminator field is usually an integer type, that is mapped to some enumeration in your code. It may also be a foreign key to some lookup table in your database, identifying which numbers correspond to which types (not table names, just descriptions).
The other way to do this is multiple-table inheritance, which is better for your database but not as easy to map in code. You do this by having a base table which defines some common properties of all the objects - perhaps just an ID and a name - and all of your "specific" tables (Person etc.) use the base ID as a unique foreign key (usually also the primary key).
In the first case, the exclusivity is implicit, since all entities are in one table. In the second case, the relationship is between the Item and the base entity ID, which also guarantees uniqueness.
Note that with multiple-table inheritance, you have a different problem - you can't guarantee that a base ID is used by exactly one inheritance table. It could be used by several, or not used at all. That is why multiple-table inheritance schemes usually also have a discriminator column, to identify which table is "expected." Again, this discriminator doesn't hold a table name, it holds a lookup value which the consumer may (or may not) use to determine which other table to join to.
Multiple-table inheritance is a closer match to your current schema, so I would recommend going with that unless you need to use this with Linq to SQL or a similar ORM.
See here for a good detailed tutorial: Implementing Table Inheritance in SQL Server.
Find something common to Person, Vehicle, Building, Office. For the lack of a better term I have used Entity. Then implement super-type/sub-type relationship between the Entity and its sub-types. Note that the EntityID is a PK and a FK in all sub-type tables. Now, you can link the Item table to the Entity (owner).
In this model, one item can belong to only one Entity; one Entity can have (own) many items.
your link table is ok.
the trouble you will have is that you will need to generate dynamic sql at runtime. parameterized sql does not typically allow the objects inthe FROM list to be parameters.
i fyou want to avoid this, you may be able to denormalize a little - say by creating a table to hold the id (assuming the ids are unique across the other tables) and the type_id representing which table is the source, and a generated description - e.g. the name value from the inital record.
you would trigger the creation of this denormalized list when the base info is modified, and you could use that for generalized queries - and then resort to your dynamic queries when needed at runtime.