Related
So, I've read a lot about how stashing multiple values into one column is a bad idea and violates the first rule of data normalisation (which, surprisingly, is not "Do Not Talk About Data Normalisation") so I need some help.
At the moment I'm designing an ASP .NET webpage for the place I work for. I want to display data on a web page depending on what Active Directory groups the person belongs to. The first way of doing this that comes to mind is to have a table with, essentially, a column containing the AD group and the second column containing what list of computers belong to that list.
I've learnt that this is showing great disregard for relational databases, so what is a better way to do it? I want to control this access by SQL tables, so I can add/remove from these tables and change end users access accordingly.
Thanks for the help! :)
EDIT: To describe exactly what I want to do is this:
We have a certain group of computers that need to be checked up on, however these computers are in physically difficult to reach locations. The organisation I belong to has remote control enabled for these computers, however they're not in the business of giving out the remote control password (understandable).
The added layer of complexity is that, depending on who you are, our clients should only be able to see a certain group of computers (that is, the group of computers that their area owns). So, if Group A has Thomas in it, and Group B has Jones in it, if you belong to either group then you would just see one entry. However, if you belong to both groups you should see both Thomas and Jones computers in it.
The reason why I think that storing this data in a SQL cell is the way to go is because, to store them in tables would require (in my mind) a new table for each new "group" of computers. I don't want to crank out SQL tables for every new group, I'd much rather just have an added row in a SQL table somewhere.
Does this make any sense?
You basically have three options in SQL Server:
Storing the values in a single column.
Storing the values in a junction table.
Storing the values as XML (or as some other structured data format).
(Other databases have other options, such as arrays, nested tables, and JSON.)
In almost all cases, using a junction table is the correct approach. Why? Here are some reasons:
SQL Server has (relatively) lousy string manipulation, so doing something as simple as ensuring a unique list is really, really hard.
A junction table allows you to store lots of other information (When was a machine added? What is the full description of the machine? etc. etc.).
Most queries that you want are pretty easy with a junction table (with the one exception of getting a comma-delimited list, alas -- which is just counterintuitive rather than "hard").
All the types are stored natively.
A junction table allows you to enforce constraints (both check and foreign key) on the elements of the list.
Although a delimited list is almost never the right solution, it is possible to think of cases where it might be useful:
The list doesn't change and presentation of the list is very important.
Space usage is an issue (alas, denormalization often results in fewer pages).
Queries do not really access elements of the list, just the entire thing.
XML is also a reasonable choice under some circumstances. In the most recent versions of SQL Server, this can be made pretty efficient. However, it incurs the overhead of reading and parsing XML -- and things like duplicate elimination are still not obvious.
So, you do have options. In almost all cases, the junction table is the right approach.
There is an "it depends" that you should consider. If the data is never going to be queried (or queried very rarely) storing it as XML or JSON would be perfectly acceptable. Many DBAs would freak out but it is much faster to get the blob of data that you are going to send to the client than to recompose and decompose a set of columns from a secondary table. (There is a reason document and object databases are becoming so popular.)
... though I would ask why are you replicating active directory to your database and how are you planning on keeping these in sync.
I not really a bad idea to store multiple values in one column, but will depend the search you want.
If you just only want to know the persons that is part of a group then you can store persons in one column with a group id as key. For update you just update the entire list in a group.
But if you want to search a specified person that belongs to group, then its not recommended that you store this multiple persons in one column. In this case its better to store a itermedium table that store person id, and group id.
Sounds like you want a table that maps users to group IDs and a second table that maps group IDs to which computers are in that group. I'm not sure, your language describing the problem was a bit confusing to me.
a list has some columns like: name, family name, phone number etc.
and rows like name=john familyName= lee number=12321321
name=... familyname=... number=...
an sql database works same way. every row in a sql database is a record. so you jusr add records of your list into your database using insert query.
complete explanation in here:
http://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_insert.asp
This sounds like a typical many-to-many problem. You have many groups and many computers and they are related to eachother. In this situation, it is often recommended to use a mapping table, a.k.a. "junction table" or "cross-reference" table. This table consist solely of the two foreign keys in your other tables.
If your tables look like this:
Computer
- computerId
- otherComputerColumns
Group
- groupId
- othergroupColumns
Then your mapping table would look like this:
GroupComputer
- groupId
- computerId
And you would insert a single record for every relationship between a group and computer. This is in compliance with the rules for third normal form in regards to database normalization.
You can have a table with the group and group id, another table with the computer and computer id and a third table with the relation of group id and computer id.
The scenario is that, I have 2 database tables A and B. The table B is an upgraded version of the table A. (ie It might possibly have different field names and some extra fields). I need to compare these 2 tables to inform the user about these extra fields and propose to him a mapping of the fields between the tables.
Currently I am thinking of comparing them using info like field name, data element and domain in that order.
Is there a standard way to do this? Thanks in advance.
There is no standard tool to do this - why would you want to do it this way anyway? The canonical way is to extend the original table and fill the new fields in place.
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.
I want to design a table for items.
There are many types of items, all share several fields.
Each type of item has it's own fields.
I want to store the uncommon fields in a separate table.
I thought of something like :
----Items
+Item_id
+Item_Type_Id
+Item_Serial
...
----Item_types
+Item_Type_Id
+Item_Name
...
----Item_Fields
+Item_Field_Id
+Item_Type_Id
+Field_Name
...
----Field_Values
+Field_Value_Id
+Item_Field_Id
+Item_Id
+Value
...
The pro is having the ability to add fields and values without changing the tables.
The con is that i have to transpose the field names and values in order to see all info for an item.
Any better suggestions? Or perhaps a simple (not stored procedure) way to join the tables to get a flat info?
I tried to use PIVOT (I'm using SQL 2005) but with no luck.
Thanks.
I wrote a stored proc to make PIVOT more useful. Here is the source:
http://dot-dash-dot.com/files/pivot_query.sql
and some examples how to use it:
http://dot-dash-dot.com/files/pivot_query_examples.sql
For your data, the query would just be the raw data joining those tables above to produce a raw listing of:
set #myQuery = '
Select Item_Id, Item_Name, Field_Name, Value From ...
';
Then your call to pivot_query would be:
exec pivot_query #myQuery, 'Item_Id, Item_Name', 'Field_Name', 'max(Value)'
like that.
One other option is to store items in XML format in one single field. Depending on your usage scenario, it may work well. Or it may not.
I believe there has to be some grouping of values.
For example lets say your items are objects in a room. Then different types of objects have different attributes. For example books have publication date and number of pages, chairs have color pattern and height, etc.
In this example, you make an item table, a book table and a chair table.
You could make an "additional values" table that holds generic information as above, but what you really want to do is figure out the "types" of the different groups of attributes and then make every one of those types it's own table.
Is there a set of values that all items have? There has to be at least one which is a type field (this describes where the other information is stored. I expect every item will also have a name and a description. This is the information to go in the item table.
Then you make additional tables for the different types itembook, itemchair etc. There may even be some overlap. For example itembook, itemhardback, itempaperback would be 3 tables used to describe books.
I believe this is the best solution to your problem. It will still allow you to extend, but it does put a framework around your data.
Of course there are systems that do it the way you describe, but unless you are building a tool that others are going to reuse for many different projects, it makes sense to design the system for the task at hand. You end up falling into the over designing trap otherwise. (IMHO)
On the other hand, if you are going to go the totally generic direction I suggest you use one of the systems that already exist that work in this way (entity framework, app framework, etc) Use someone else's don't start from scratch.
I'm not too sure how you want to retrieve the info, but something like the below may work. (It's probably close to what Hogan mentioned.)
If you want to retrieve data for a type, you can just JOIN two tables.
If you want to retrieve data for all types (with all fields), you can LEFT JOIN all tables.
----Items
+Item_id
+Item_Type_Id
+Item_Common_Field1
+Item_Common_Field1
...
----Item_Type_A
+Item_id
+Item_Type_A_Specific_Field1
+Item_Type_A_Specific_Field2
...
----Item_Type_B
+Item_id
+Item_Type_B_Specific_Field1
...
If you add these columns to the table, you can make them sparse columns to avoid the space taken by unspecified uncommon fields.
But I would not call this a best practice. (see comments under your question)
I don't want to be accused of being the always-uses-the-latest-useless-technology guy, but depending on your use case, this might be a good case for a nosql database - Tokyo, Mongo, SimpleDB, etc. Or as Developer Art suggested, you could just serialize the different fields into a single column. It's not the worst thing in the world.
My friend is building a product to be used by different independent medical units.
The database stores a vast collection of measurements taken at different times, like the temperature, blood pressure, etc...
Let us assume these are held in a table called exams with columns temperature, pressure, etc... (as well as id, patient_id and timestamp). Most of the measurements are stored as floats, but some are of other types (strings, integers...)
While many of these measurements are handled by their product, it needs to allow the different medical units to record and process other custom measurements. A very nifty UI allows the administrator to edit these customs fields, specify their name, type, possible range of values, etc...
He is unsure as to how to store these custom fields.
He is leaning towards a separate table (say a table custom_exam_data with fields like exam_id, custom_field_id, float_value, string_value, ...)
I worry that this will make searching both more difficult to achieve and less efficient.
I am leaning towards modifying the exam table directly (while avoiding conflicts on column names with some scheme like prefixing all custom fields with an underscore or naming them custom_1, ...)
He worries about modifying the database dynamically and having different schemas for each medical unit.
Hopefully some people which more experience can weigh in on this issue.
Notes:
he is using Ruby on Rails but I think this question is pretty much framework agnostic, except from the fact that he is only looking for solutions in SQL databases only.
I simplified the problem a bit since the custom fields need to be available for more than one table, but I believe this doesn`t really impact the direction to take.
(added) A very generic reporting module will need to search, sort, generate stats, etc.. of this data, so it is required that this data be stored in the columns of the appropriate type
(added) User inputs will be filtered, for the standard fields as well as for the custom fields. For example, numbers will be checked within a given range (can't have a temperature of -12 or +444), etc... Thus, conversion to the appropriate SQL type is not a problem.
I've had to deal with this situation many times over the years, and I agree with your initial idea of modifying the DB tables directly, and using dynamic SQL to generate statements.
Creating string UserAttribute or Key/Value columns sounds appealing at first, but it leads to the inner-platform effect where you end up having to re-implement foreign keys, data types, constraints, transactions, validation, sorting, grouping, calculations, et al. inside your RDBMS. You may as well just use flat files and not SQL at all.
SQL Server provides INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables that let you create, query, and modify table schemas at runtime. This has full type checking, constraints, transactions, calculations, and everything you need already built-in, don't reinvent it.
It's strange that so many people come up with ad-hoc solutions for this when there's a well-documented pattern for it:
Entity-Attribute-Value (EAV) Model
Two alternatives are XML and Nested Sets. XML is easier to manage but generally slow. Nested Sets usually require some type of proprietary database extension to do without making a mess, like CLR types in SQL Server 2005+. They violate first-normal form, but are nevertheless the fastest-performing solution.
Microsoft Dynamics CRM achieves this by altering the database design each time a change is made. Nasty, I think.
I would say a better option would be to consider an attribute table. Even though these are often frowned upon, it gives you the flexibility you need, and you can always create views using dynamic SQL to pivot the data out again. Just make sure you always use LEFT JOINs and FKs when creating these views, so that the Query Optimizer can do its job better.
I have seen a use of your friend's idea in a commercial accounting package. The table was split into two, first contained fields solely defined by the system, second contained fields like USER_STRING1, USER_STRING2, USER_FLOAT1 etc. The tables were linked by identity value (when a record is inserted into the main table, a record with same identity is inserted into the second one). Each table that needed user fields was split like that.
Well, whenever I need to store some unknown type in a database field, I usually store it as String, serializing it as needed, and also store the type of the data.
This way, you can have any kind of data, working with any type of database.
I would be inclined to store the measurement in the database as a string (varchar) with another column identifying the measurement type. My reasoning is that it will presumably, come from the UI as a string and casting to any other datatype may introduce a corruption before the user input get's stored.
The downside is that when you go to filter result-sets by some measurement metric you will still have to perform a casting but at least the storage and persistence mechanism is not introducing corruption.
I can't tell you the best way but I can tell you how Drupal achieves a sort of schemaless structure while still using the standard RDBMSs available today.
The general idea is that there's a schema table with a list of fields. Each row really only has two columns, the 'table':String column and the 'column':String column. For each of these columns it actually defines a whole table with just an id and the actual data for that column.
The trick really is that when you are working with the data it's never more than one join away from the bundle table that lists all the possible columns so you end up not losing as much speed as you might otherwise think. This will also allow you to expand much farther than just a few medical companies unlike the custom_ prefix you were proposing.
MySQL is very fast at returning row data for short rows with few columns. In this way this scheme ends up fairly quick while allowing you lots of flexibility.
As to search, my suggestion would be to index the page content instead of the database content. Use Solr to parse through rendered pages and hold links to the actual page instead of trying to search through the database using clever SQL.
Define two new tables: custom_exam_schema and custom_exam_data.
custom_exam_data has an exam_id column, plus an additional column for every custom attribute.
custom_exam_schema would have a row to describe how to interpret each of the columns of the custom_exam_data table. It would have columns like name, type, minValue, maxValue, etc.
So, for example, to create a custom field to track the number of fingers a person has, you would add ('fingerCount', 'number', 0, 10) to custom_exam_schema and then add a column named fingerCount to the exam table.
Someone might say it's bad to change the database schema at run time, but I'd argue that configuring these custom fields is part of set up and won't happen too often. Still, this method lets you handle changes at any time and doesn't risk messing around with your core table schemas.
lets say that your friend's database has to store data values from multiple sources such as demogrphic values, diagnosis, interventions, physionomic values, physiologic exam values, hospitalisation values etc.
He might have as well to define choices, lets say his database is missing the race and the unit staff need the race of the patient (different races are more unlikely to get some diseases), they might want to use a drop down with several choices.
I would propose to use an other table that would have these choices or would you just use a "Custom_field_choices" table, which at some point is exactly the same but with a different name.
Considering that the database :
- needs to be flexible
- that data from multiple tables can be added and be customized
- that you might want to keep the integrity of the main structure of your database for distribution and uniformity purpose
- that data MUST have a limit and alarms and warnings
- that data must have units ( 10 kg or 10 pounds) ?
- that data can have a selection of choices
- that data can be with different rights (from simple user to admin)
- that these data might be needed to generate reports without modifying the code (automation)
- that these data might be needed to make cross reference analysis within the system without modifying the code
the custom table would be my solution, modifying each table would end up being too risky.
I would store those custom fields in a table where each record ( dataType, dataValue, dataUnit ) would use in one row. So there would be a relation oneToMany from one sample to the data. You can also create a table to record all the kind of cutsom types you would use. For example:
create table DataType
(
id int primary key,
name varchar(100) not null unique
description text,
uri varchar(255) //<-- can be used for an ONTOLOGY
)
create table DataRecord
(
id int primary key,
sample_id int not null,//<-- reference to the sample
dataType_id int not null, //<-- references DataType
value varchar(100),//<-- the value as string
unit varchar(50)//<-- g, mg/ml, etc... but it could also be a link to a table describing the units just like DataType
)