Let's say I have a database with two tables, User and Store.
Lets make the rules:
A User must belong to one Store
A Store may have one or more Users
A store though, may have a store manager. What is the best approach for this?
Adding a 'is_store_manager' boolean column at the Users table, or create a foreign key called something like manager_user_fk at the Store table? I guess that would create a many to many relationship though, which would be bad, but it would be a solid constraint to select a user I think. What would be the best approach?
Don't create a fk on the Store. It is somewhat redundant and will make some future SQL queries harder.
You could add another table, UserType with the Manager, and Non-Manager types. You'd then add a fk on the Users table pointing to the UserType.
Edit:
If you wanted a user to be allowed multiple roles, you'd need another join table:
Let's call the previous table table Role, instead of UserType, and add another table, UserRole that is a join between User and Role (it has only 2 columns: a foreign key to User, and a foreign key to Role. With this setup, you wouldn't have any fk on the User table, as this join table would hold all the information about the relationship. A user could have as many roles as you like then.
An alternative to the accepted solution which only allows a user to be of one type you can use what I've been doing to replace boolean status fields. Create a table called UserManager with a primary key also being a foreign key to User.
Any user with an entry in UserManager is a manager. To get the managers you just join the User table with the UserManager. This also lets you store more meta data (i.e. you could store when the user became a manager etc).
Then if you want an AdminUser table, you do the same thing. Any user in the AdminUser table is also an admin. You can have a user be both (or none, or one). Along with storing more meta data about the type.
Related
Suppose I have a User Table and a UserProfile Table that I have separated. The two tables have a 1:1 relationship.
User table contains only data like email and password, while UserProfile contains data like first name, last name, phone number, etc.
Does it make more sense that future tables like Projects (for projects of a user) or Ratings (ratings of a user) have a 1:N ratio to the UserProfile table or the actual Account table (User)?
Thanks for tips.
Your users table should have a unique id to identify users throughout your database. In general, this would be an integer, because those are a bit more efficient for indexes.
As for your data model, you would use this user_id for all tables that reference users. This includes userProfiles. In that table, it would be both a primary key and foreign key -- unless this were a type-2 table with version effective and end dates.
Note: I would tend to put all sensitive data in userProfiles -- including the email. An encrypted password would not need to go there. That way, you can better control access to PII ("personally identifiable information").
I actually need some feedback on the tables since my goal is to have
only the admin who can add the users and add files to the users. An admin can login and select either add users, add files for the users.Only the users who can login and download files.
Looks to me like you're missing a USER_ROLES table (primary key: UserID,RoleID). The FK from Files would be to USER_ROLES, not ROLE. Also, you should be consistent in naming tables as either singular or plural nouns. (I prefer plural).
I've made some changes on users_roles table and the only changes on the users table is only the userid in pk since I don't need the foreign key in userid.
I'm trying to design a database structure using best practice but I can't get my head around something which I'm sure is fundamental. The DB is for the users(100+) to subscribe to which magazines(100+) they read.
I have a table for the usernames, user info and magazine titles, but I'm unsure where to list the magazines that each user follows. Do I add a column in the user table and link it to the magazine table or would each user be setup with their own "follow" table that lists the magazine there? I'm getting myself confused I think so any help would be great.
Regards
Ryan
What you're struggling with is called a many-to-many relationship.
To solve this problem, you need a third table--perhaps called user_magazines. This third table should two key fields, one from the user table and the other from the magazine table. For example, user_id column and a magazine_id column. This is called a compound key. With both of these columns, you are now able to discern which books have been read by a whichever user.
This is best understood visually:
In the picture above you can see that the third table (the middle table, stock_category) enables us to know what stock item belongs to which categories.
First of all, you must understand a many-to-many relationship, like take your example of users and magazines. First understand the scenario : A single user can follow many magazines, and a single magazine can be followed by many users, so there exists a many-to-many relationship between users and magazines.
Whenever there exists many-to-many relationship between two entities, we have to introduce a third entity between them which is called an associative entity!
so you have to introduce a third entity named as per your choice and it will be containing information about which user is following which magazine
you can go to http://sqlrelationship.com/many-to-many-relationship/ for better understanding using diagrams
You should have a users table, with an auto-incrementing primary key, username, and anything else you want to store about that user.
Next, a magazines table which contains another auto-incrementing primary key, the name of the mag and anything else you need to store about that magazine.
Finally, a subscriptions table. this should have an auto-incrementing primary key (actually that's not really necessary on this table but personally I would add it), a user_ID column and a magazine_ID column.
To add a subscription, just add a new record to the subscription table containing the ID of the user and the ID of the relevant magazine. This allows for users to subscribe to multiple magazines.
If you want to get fancy you can add referential integrity constraints to the subscriptions table - this tells the database management system that a particular column is a reference to another table, and can specify what to do upon modifying it (for example you could have the DBMS automatically delete subscriptions owned by a particular user if that user is deleted)
You definitely do NOT want to add a column to the user table and have it refer to the magazine table. Users would only be able to follow or subscribe to one magazine which doesn't reflect the real world.
You'll want to have a join table that has a userId and a magazineId. For each magazine that a user subscribes to there will be one entry in the join table.
I'm inferring a little bit about your table structure but if you had:
User (id, login)
Magazine (id, name)
User_Magazine (userId, magazineId)
Perhaps this last table should be called subscription because there may be other information like the subscription end date which you'd want to track and that is really what it is representing in the real world.
You'd be able to put an entry into the User_Magazine table for every subscription.
And if you wanted to see all the magazines a user with the login jdoe had you'd do:
SELECT name
FROM User, Magazine, User_Magazine
WHERE login = 'jdoe'
AND User.id = User_Magazine.userId
AND Magazine.id = User_Magazine.magazineId
You should create a separate table called UserMagazineSubs. Make the UserID + MagazineTile ID as a composite key.
This table will capture all User and Magazine relationship details.
A User_To_Magazine table, that has two columns - UserId and MagazineId, and the key is composite containing both columns
I have a case where the DB is set up with (simplifying) a table User and a table SuperUser. Both have a column Id. Every SuperUser row has a row in the User table with the same Id value (not my design!!!). The SUperUser table does not pull common info from the User table, it duplicates it.
Can/should any foreign key that points to User.Id also have a FK:PK relationship with SuperUser.Id? My take on this is it is at a minimum a very bad idea and that many (most?) DBs can't enforce this relationship/
Am I off base here?
Based on my understanding of your question you would run into two major problems with a foreign key set up to both the User and SuperUser tables.
You would not be able to enter or update any table with a foreign key set up like that unless the user was in both tables since the foreign key expects that userid to be present in both of them.
If you have the foreign key set up with a cascade delete and remove a record from the SuperUser then all tables with that set up would remove records associated with that userid potentially leaving you with just the record in the User table and all other information lost.
What would be a better option would be setting the userid column in the SuperUser table to be a foreign key of the userid column in the User table that way you will not run into issues where a user is not in both tables or removing a user from the SuperUser table.
Since every user has a record in the user table and I am assuming that not every user is a super user, I would just reference them by user and check if they are a super user when needed.
It would good to remove the duplicated fields if at all possible. This can easily become a nightmare to maintain as things grow.
I have different 3 types of users and each type of user can have columns and relationships with tables that another type doesn't, but all of them have login(Unique) and password,
how would you do:
create a table for each type or
create one table for all of them or
create a table for all of them only for login and password and separate for all the other things and bind them with a FK
something else
Number 3 is the best of the options you suggested (updated slightly for clarification):
create a table for all of them for login and password and anything else that is shared and a separate table for all the other things that are not shared and bind them with a FK
Except don't store the password, store a hashed version of a salted password.
An alternative might be to assign groups and/or roles to your users. This might be more flexible than a fixed table structure, allowing you to add new roles dynamically. But it depends on your needs whether this is useful for you or not.
As Aaronaught pointed out, in the main table you need an AccountType to ensure that a user can only have one of the roles. You must remember to check the value of this column when joining the tables to ensure that a user has only one role active.
A unique constraint on the foreign key ensures that a user can only have a role once.