Just starting with Domain Driven Design and I've learned that you should keep your model in a valid state and when creating a new instance of a class it's recomended to put all required attributes as constructor parameters.
But, when working with auto incremented keys I just have this new ID when I call an Add method from my persistent layer. If I instanciate my objects without a key, I think they will be in a invalid state because they need some sort of unique identifier.
How should I implement my architecture in order to have my IDs before creating a new instance of my entity ?
Generated Random IDs
The pragmatic approach here is to use random IDs and generate them before instantiating an entity, e.g. in a factory. GUIDs are a common choice.
And before you ask: No, you won't run out of GUIDs :-)
Sequential IDs with ID reservation
If you must use a sequential ID for some reason, then you still have options:
Query a sequence on the DB to get the next ID. This depends on your DB product, Oracle for example has them).
Create a table with an auto-increment key that you use only as key reservation table. To get an ID, insert a row into that table - the generated key is now reserved for you, so you can use it as ID for the entity.
Note that both approaches for sequential IDs require a DB round-trip before you even start creating the entity. This is why the random IDs are usually simpler. So if you can, use random IDs.
DB-generated IDs
Another possibility is to just live with the fact that you don't have the ID at creation time, but only when the insert operation on the DB succeeds. In my experience, this makes entity creation awkward to use, so I avoid it. But for very simple cases, it may be a valid approach.
IN adition to theDmi's comments
1) You can in your factory method make sure your entity gets stored to the database. This might or might not be applicable to your domain but if you are sure that entity is going to be saved that might be a valid approach
2) You can separate the ID from the primary key from the database. I've worked with a case there something was only an order if the customer payed and at that point it would be identified by it's invoice id (a sequentual ID). that doesn't mean in the database i would need an column ID which was also the primary key of the object. You could have a primary key in the database (random guid) and till have an ID (int?) to be sequentual and null if it hasn't be filled yet.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Surrogate vs. natural/business keys [closed]
(19 answers)
Why would one consider using Surrogate keys vs Natural with ON UPDATE CASCADE?
(1 answer)
Closed 7 months ago.
Recently I Inherited a huge app from somebody who left the company.
This app used a SQL server DB .
Now the developer always defines an int base primary key on tables. for example even if Users table has a unique UserName field , he always added an integer identity primary key.
This is done for every table no matter if other fields could be unique and define primary key.
Do you see any benefits whatsoever on this? using UserName as primary key vs adding UserID(identify column) and set that as primary key?
I feel like I have to add add another element to my comments, which started to produce an essay of comments, so I think it is better that I post it all as an answer instead.
Sometimes there are domain specific reasons why a candidate key is not a good candidate for joins (maybe people change user names so often that the required cascades start causing performance problems). But another reason to add an ever-increasing surrogate is to make it the clustered index. A static and ever-increasing clustered index alleviates a high-cost IO operation known as a page split. So even with a good natural candidate key, it can be useful to add a surrogate and cluster on that. Read this for further details.
But if you add such a surrogate, recognise that the surrogate is purely internal, it is there for performance reasons only. It does not guarantee the integrity of your data. It has no meaning in the model, unless it becomes part of the model. For example, if you are generating invoice numbers as an identity column, and sending those values out into the real world (on invoice documents/emails/etc), then it's not a surrogate, it's part of the model. It can be meaningfully referenced by the customer who received the invoice, for example.
One final thing that is typically left out of this discussion is one particular aspect of join performance. It is often said that the primary key should also be narrow, because it can make joins more performant, as well as reducing the size of non-clustered indexes. And that's true.
But a natural primary key can eliminate the need for a join in the first place.
Let's put all this together with an example:
create table Countries
(
countryCode char(2) not null primary key clustered,
countryName varchar(64) not null
);
insert Countries values
('AU', 'Australia'),
('FR', 'France');
create table TourLocations
(
tourLocationName varchar(64) not null,
tourLocationId int identity(1,1) unique clustered,
countryCode char(2) not null foreign key references Countries(countryCode),
primary key (countryCode, tourLocationName)
);
insert TourLocations (TourLocationName, countryCode) values
('Bondi Beach', 'AU'),
('Eiffel Tower', 'FR')
I did not add a surrogate key to Countries, because there aren't many rows and we're not going to be constantly inserting new rows. I already know what all the countries are, and they don't change very often.
On the TourLocations table I have added an identity and clustered on it. There could be very many tour locations, changing all the time.
But I still must have a natural key on TourLocations. Otherwise I could insert the same tour location name with the same country twice. Sure, the Id's will be different. But the Id's don't mean anything. As far as any real human is concerned, two tour locations with the same name and country code are completely indistinguishable. Do you intend to have actual users using the system? Then you've got a problem.
By putting the same country and location name in twice I haven't created two facts in my database. I have created the same fact twice! No good. The natural key is necessary. In this sense The Impaler's answer is strictly, necessarily, wrong. You cannot not have a natural key. If the natural key can't be defined as anything other than "every meaningful column in the table" (that is to say, excluding the surrogate), so be it.
OK, now let's investigate the claim that an int identity key is advantageous because it helps with joins. Well, in this case my char(2) country code is narrower than an int would have been.
But even if it wasn't (maybe we think we can get away with a tinyint), those country codes are meaningful to real people, which means a lot of the time I don't have to do the join at all.
Suppose I gave the results of this query to my users:
select countryCode, tourLocationName
from TourLocations
order by 1, 2;
Very many people will not need me to provide the countries.countryName column for them to know which country is represented by the code in each of those rows. I don't have to do the join.
When you're dealing with a specific business domain that becomes even more likely. Meaningful codes are understood by the domain users. They often don't need to see the long description columns from the key table. So in many cases no join is required to give the users all of the information they need.
If I had foreign keyed to an identity surrogate I would have to do the join, because the identity surrogate doesn't mean anything to anyone.
You are talking about the difference between synthetic and natural keys.
In my [very] personal opinion, I would recommend to always use synthetic keys (and always call it id). The main problem is that natural keys are never unique; they are unique in theory, yes, but in the real world there are a myriad of unexpected and inexorable events that will make this false.
In database design:
Natural keys correspond to values present in the domain model. For example, UserName, SSN, VIN can be considered natural keys.
Synthetic keys are values not present in the domain model. They are just numeric/string/UUID values that have no relationship with the actual data. They only serve as a unique identifiers for the rows.
I would say, stick to synthetic keys and sleep well at night. You never know what the Marketing Department will come up with on Monday, and suddenly "the username is not unique anymore".
Yes having a dedicated int is a good thing for PK use.
you may have multiple alternate keys, that's ok too.
two great reasons for it:
it is performant
it protects against key mutation ( editing a name etc. )
A username or any such unique field that holds meaningful data is subject to changes. A name may have been misspelled or you might want to edit a name to choose a better one, etc. etc.
Primary keys are used to identify records and, in conjunction with foreign keys, to connect records in different tables. They should never change. Therefore, it is better to use a meaningless int field as primary key.
By meaningless I mean that apart from being the primary key it has no meaning to the users.
An int identity column has other advantages over a text field as primary key.
It is generated by the database engine and is guaranteed to be unique in multi-user scenarios.
it is faster than a text column.
Text can have leading spaces, hidden characters and other oddities.
There are multiple kinds of text data types, multiple character sets and culture dependent behaviors resulting in text comparisons not always working as expected.
int primary keys generated in ascending order have a superior performance in conjunction with clustered primary keys (which is a SQL-Server specialty).
Note that I am talking from a database point of view. In the user interface, users will prefer identifying entries by name or e-mail address, etc.
But commands like SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE will always identify records by the primary key.
This subject - quite much like gulivar travels and wars being fought over which end of the egg you supposed to crack open to eat.
However, using the SAME "id" name for all tables, and autonumber? Yes, it is LONG establihsed choice.
There are of course MANY different views on this subject, and many advantages and disavantages.
Regardless of which choice one perfers (or even needs), this is a long established concept in our industry. In fact SharePoint tables use "ID" and autonumber by defualt. So does ms-access, and there probably more that do this.
The simple concpet?
You can build your tables with the PK and child tables with forighen keys.
At that point you setup your relationships between the tables.
Now, you might decide to add say some invoice number or whatever. Rules might mean that such invoice number is not duplicated.
But, WHY do we care of you have some "user" name, or some "invoice" number or whatever. Why should that fact effect your relational database model?
You mean I don't have a user name, or don't have a invoice number, and the whole database and relatonships don't work anymore? We don't care!!!!
The concept of data, even required fields, or even a column having to be unique ?
That has ZERO to do with a working relational data model.
And maybe you decide that invoice number is not generated until say sent to the customer. So, the fact of some user name, invoice number or whatever? Don't care - you can have all kinds of business rules for those numbers, but they have ZERO do to do with the fact that you designed a working relational data model based on so called "surrogate" or sometime called synthetic keys.
So, once you build that data model - even with JUST the PK "id" and FK (forighen keys), you are NOW free to start adding columns and define what type of data you going to put in each table. but, what you shove into each table has ZERO to do with that working related data model. They are to be thought as seperate concpets.
So, if you have a user name - add that column to the table. If you don't want users name, remove the column. As such data you store in the table has ZERO to do with the automatic PK ID you using - it not really any different then say what area of memory the computer going to allocate to load that data. Basic data operations of the system is has nothing to do with having build database with relationships that simple exist. And the data columns you add after having built those relationships is up to you - but will not, and should not effect the operation of the database and relationships you built and setup. Not only are these two concepts separate, but they free the developer from having to worry about the part that maintains the relationships as opposed to data column you add to such tables to store user data.
I mean, in json data, xml? We often have a master + child table relationship. We don't care how that relationship is maintained - but only that it exists.
Thus yes, all tables have that pk "ID". Even better? in code, you NEVER have to guess what the PK id is - it always the same!!!
So, data and columns you put and toss into a table? Those columns and data have zero to do with the PK id, and while it is the database generating that PK? It could be a web service call to some monkeys living in a far away jungle eating banana's and they give you a PK value based on how many bananas they eaten. We just really don't' care about that number - it is just internal house keeping numbers - one that we don't see or even care about in most code. And thus the number one rule to such auto matic PK values?
You NEVER give that auto PK number any meaning from a user and applcation point of view.
In summary:
Yes, using a PK called "id" for all tables? Common, and in fact in SharePoint and many systems, it not only the default, but is in fact required for such systems to operate.
Its better to use userid. User table is referenced by many other tables.
The referenced table would contain the primary key of the user table as foreign key.
Its better to use userid since its integer value,
it takes less space than string values of username and
the searches by the database engine would be faster
user(userid, username, name)
comments(commentid, comment, userid) would be better than
comments(commentid, comment, username)
With SQL Server 2K8 from C# I'm trying to do a batch insert/updates of records to a parent/child tables to optimize.
The inserts/updates will generate a key automatically which I'd like to extract via an OUTPUT, etc. and then reassign back in the domain model. For batch inserts I need to keep track of which newly generated ID belongs to which domain object in the batch list.
This example comes close to what I need, but was wondering if there's a way to not have an extra column added to the table (SequenceNumber) and still achieve the same results: http://illdata.com/blog/2010/01/13/sql-server-batch-inserts-of-parentchild-data-with-ibatis/
ie. could we rely on the order of the inserts generated from the OUTPUT into the temp table, or pass a ref GUID set on the data model and passed temporarily to the SQL just for reference purposes?
In SQL Server 2008 it is possible to use merge and output to get a mapping between the generated key and the key used in the staging table.
Have a look at this question. Using merge..output to get mapping between source.id and target.id
Unless I've misunderstood...
A surrogate key (IDENTITY or NEWID etc) isn't your actual object identifier. It's an implementation detail and has no intrinsic meaning.
You must have another identifier (name, ISBN, serial number, transaction code/date, etc) that is the real (natural) key.
Your OUTPUT clause can return the surrogate key and the natural key. You then use this to map back
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.
I am creating the model for a web application. The tables have ID fields as primary keys. My question is whether one should define ID as a property of the class?
I am divided on the issue because it is not clear to me whether I should treat the object as a representation of the table structure or whether I should regard the table as a means to persist the object.
If I take the former route then ID becomes a property because it is part of the structure of the database table, however if I take the latter approach then ID could be viewed as a peice of metadata belonging to the database which is not strictly a part of the objects model.
And then we arrive at the middle ground. While the ID is not really a part of the object I'm trying to model, I do realise that the the objects are retrieved from and persisted to the database, and that the ID of an object in the database is critical to many operations of the system so it might be advantageous to include it to ease interactions where an ID is used.
I'm a solo developer, so I'd really like some other, probably more experienced perspectives on the issue
Basically: yes.
All the persistence frameworks ive used (including Hibernate, Ibatis) do require the ID to be on the Object.
I understand your point about metadata, but an Object from a database should really derive its identity in the same way the database does - usually an int primary key. Then Object-level equality should be derived from that.
Sometimes you have primary keys that are composite, e.g first name and last name (don't ever do this!), in which cases the primary key doesn't become 'metadata' because it is part of the Object's identity.
I generally reserve the ID column of an object for the database. My opinion is that to use it for any 'customer-facing' purpose, (for example, use the primary key ID as a customer number) you will always shoot yourself in the foot later.
If you ever make changes to the existing data (instead of exclusively adding new data), you need the PK. Otherwise you don't know which record to change in the DB.
You should have the ID in the object. It is essential.
The easiest use case to give as an example is testing equality:
public bool Equals(Object a, Object b) { return {a.ID = b.ID}; }
Anything else is subject to errors, and you'll find that out when you start getting primary key violations or start overwriting existing data.
By counterargument:
Say you don't have the ID in the object. Once you change an object, and don't have it's ID from the database, how will you know which record to update?
At the same time, you should note that the operations I mention are really private to the object instance, so ID does not necessarily have to be a public property.
I include the ID as a property. Having a simple unique identifier for an object is often very handy regardless of whether the object is persisted in a database or not. It also makes your database queries much more simple.
I would say that the table is just a means to persist an object, but that doesn't mean the object can't have an ID.
I'm very much of the mindset that the table is a means to persist the object, but, even so, I always expose the IDs on my objects for two primary reasons:
The database ID is the most convenient way to uniquely identify an object, either within a class (if you're using a per-table serial/autonumber ID) or universally (if you're maintaining a separate "ID-to-class" mapping). In the context of web applications, it makes everything much simpler and more efficient if your forms are able to just specify <input type=hidden name=id value=12345> instead of having to provide multiple fields which collectively contain sufficient information to identify the target object (or, worse, use some scheme to concatenate enough identifying information into a single string, then break it back down when the form is submitted).
It needs to have an ID anyhow in order to maintain a sane database structure and there's no reason not to expose it.
Should the ID in the object read-only or not? In my mind it should be read-only as by definition the ID will never change (as it uniquely identifies a record in the database).
This creates a problem when you create a new object (ID not set yet), save it in the database through a stored procedure which returns the newly created ID then how do you store it back in the object if the ID property is read-only?
Example:
Employee employee = new Employee();
employee.FirstName="John";
employee.LastName="Smith";
EmployeeDAL.Save(employee);
How does the Save method (which actually connects to the database to save the new employee) update the EmployeeId property in the Employee object if this property is read-only (which should be as the EmployeeId will never ever change once it's created).
Is it possible in hibernate to have an entity where some IDs are assigned and some are generated?
For instance:
Some objects have an ID between 1-10000 that are generated outside of the database; while some entities come in with no ID and need an ID generated by the database.
You could use 'assigned' as the Id generation strategy, but you would have to give the entity its id before you saved it to the database. Alternately you could build your own implementation of org.hibernate.id.IdentifierGenerator to provide the Id in the manner you've suggested.
I have to agree w/ Cade Roux though, and doing so seems like it be much more difficult than using built in increment, uuid, or other form of id generation.
I would avoid this and simply have an auxiliary column for the information about the source of the object and a column for the external identifier (assuming the external identifier was an important value you wanted to keep track of).
It's generally a bad idea to use columns for mixed purposes - in this case to infer from the nature of a surrogate key the source of an object.
Use any generator you like, make sure it can start at an offset (when you use a sequence, you can initialize it accordingly).
For all other entities, call setId() before you insert them. Hibernate will only generate an id if the id property is 0. Note that you should first insert objects with ids into the db and then work with them. There is a lot of code in Hibernate which expects the object to be in the DB when id != 0.
Another solution is to use negative ids for entities which come with an id. This will also make sure that there are no collisions when you insert an new object.