Question
What is the accepted way of using multiple databases that record information about the same object that will ultimately end up living in one central database?
Example
There is one main SQL database about trees.
This database holds information about unique trees from all over the UK.
To collect the information a blank Sqlite database is created (with the same schema) and taken to the tree on a phone.
The collected information is then stored in the Sqlite database until it is brought back to the main database, Where it is then transferred into the main database.
Now this works fine as long as there is only one Sqlite database out for any one tree at a time.
However, if two people wanted to collect different information for the same tree at the same time, when they both came back and attempted to transfer their data in to the main database, there would be collisions on their primary key constraints.
ID Schemes (with example data)
There is a tree table which has unique identifier called treeID
TreeID - TreeName - Location
1001 - Teddington Field - Plymouth
Branch table
BranchID - BranchName - TreeID
1001-10001 - 1st Branch - 1001
1001-10002 - 2nd Branch -1001
Leave table
LeafID - LeafName - BranchId
1001-10001-1 - Bedroom - 1001-10001
1001-10002-2 - Bathroom - 1001-10001
Possible ideas
Assign each database 1000 unique ID's and then one they come back in as the ids have already been assigned the ids on each database won't collide.
Downfall
This isn't very dynamic and could fail if one database overruns on its preassigned ids.
Is there another way to achieve the same flexibility but with out the downfall mentioned above?
So, as an answer:
on the master db, store an extra id field identifying the source/collection database that the dataset was collected on, as well as the tree id.
(src01, 1001), (src02, 1001)
This also allows you to link back easily to the collection source of the information which is likely gonna be a future requirement. Now, you may or may not want to autogenerate another sequence id key value on the master db's table (I wouldn't but that's because I am not that fond of surrogate keys), but I would definitely keep track of the source/treeid it was originally collected with in the field, separately of any master db unique key considerations.
Apparently you are talking about auto-generated IDs for related objects, not the IDs for the trees themselves. Two different people collecting information about the same tree, starting from the same starting set, end up generating the same IDs independently. The two sets of generated IDs cannot coexist in the same DB.
Since you want to keep all the new data. One possible solution is to avoid using the field-generated IDs in the central database at all. When each set of data comes in, take the data that were added in the field, and programmatically add them to the central DB in a way equivalent to how they are added in the field, letting the central DB autogenerate its own IDs.
This requires a mechanism to distinguish newly-collected data from old, but that might be as simple as a timestamp.
Related
I'm working on a data warehouse project using BigQuery. We're loading daily files exported from various mainframe systems. Most tables have unique keys which we can use to create the type 2 history, but some tables, e.g. a ledger/positions table, can have duplicate rows. These files contain the full data extract from the source system every day.
We're currently able to maintain a type 2 history for most tables without knowing the primary keys, as long as all rows in a load are unique, but we have a challenge with tables where this is not the case.
One person on the project has suggested that the way to handle it is to "compare duplicates", meaning that if the DWH table has 5 identical rows and the staging tables has 6 identical rows, then we just insert one more, and if it is the other way around, we just close one of the records in the DWH table (by setting the end date to now). This could be implemented by adding and extra "sub row" key to the dataset like this:
Row_number() over(partition by “all data columns” order by SystemTime) as data_row_nr
I've tried to find out if this is good practice or not, but without any luck. Something about it just seems wrong to me, and I can't see what unforeseen consequences can arise from doing it like this.
Can anybody tell me what the best way to go is when dealing with full loads of ledger data on a daily basis, for which we want to maintain some kind of history in the DWH?
No, I do not think this would be a good idea to introduce an artificial primary key based on all columns plus the index of the duplicated row.
You will solve the technical problem, but I doubt there will be some business value.
First of all you should distinct – the tables you get with primary key are dimensions and you can recognise changes and build history.
But the table without PK are most probably fact tables (i.e. transaction records) that are typically not full loaded but loaded based on some DELTA criterion.
Anyway you will never be able to recognise an update in those records, only possible change is insert (deletes are typically not relevant as data warehouse keeps longer history that the source system).
So my todo list
Check if the dup are intended or illegal
Try to find a delta criterion to load the fact tables
If everything fails, make the primary key of all columns with a single attribute of the number of duplicates and build the history.
I am new to databases and sql and would like to design a database for a fitness app that will keep track of workouts at the gym.
In my app, I have designed a custom workout object that has a name (e.g. 'Chest day'), an ID (some number) and a date (string). Each workout object contains an array of exercises, another custom object, that has a property for called 'set'. The set is also a custom object with only two numeric properties: number of reps and weight (e.g. 10 reps at 50 lbs)
What I thought of is to have one table for the workouts, another for the exercises and another for the sets. The problem is I do not know how to connect the tables (i.e. link multiple exercises to a unique workout and link multiple sets to a unique exercise) and am not sure if this is even the correct approach.
Also, I planned to set up the backend for this app using the amazon web services mobile hub which provides a noSQL database.
In NoSQL, you should keep all the attributes in single table. You shouldn't normalize the data like RDBMS. Also, please try to come away from Join. The main advantage of NoSQL is that keep everything as one item, so that you don't need to Join to get the result.
Advantages of this approach are:-
1) Fast response as all the data is present as one item in a table
2) Schema less database i.e. you can add any attributes at any time (i.e. no need to alter table and add the new columns)
DynamoDB design for above use case:-
The combination of partition and sort key should be unique
name -String (Partition Key)
id -Number (Sort Key)
date - String
exercise : [array of values] - List data type
custom_set : {rep : 1, weight : 2} - Map data type
Important Note:-
The important thing while designing the data model for DynamoDB is all the data retrieval use cases (i.e. Query Access Patterns) should be available to design the appropriate model.
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.
Currently have a contracts system that pulls in job data from our finance system. Each job has an id and the contracts hang off of that. We now have to bring in job data from another finance system. The jobs from the new system will also contain a job id and contracts will have to hang from this. I expect there will be some id conflicts when the data is merged. Whats the best way to deal with this. Should I create another table that pulls in the job data from both and assigns a new id for the contracts to hang from. Obviously I will need to update the current contracts to match the new id's generated. Does this sound like a good idea or is there a better way.
Given your additional comments, I would suggest that you use a mapping table to map any of the conflicting IDs in the old system to new IDs. Normally when importing data into an existing system you would want to keep the IDs of the current system intact, but since that system is going to be gone in a year (or however long it takes) and is about to be read only I would think that you would want to try to preserve IDs in the new system.
Once you create the mapping table, you would then use that to update any foreign key references, etc. and then import the new data, which should now have no conflicts.
I am designing a system for a client, where he is able to create data forms for various products he sales him self.
The number of fields he will be using will not be more than 600-700 (worst case scenario). As it looks like he will probably be in the range of 400 - 500 (max).
I had 2 methods in mind for creating the database (using meta data):
a) Create a table for each product, which will hold only fields necessary for this product, which will result to hundreds of tables but with only the neccessary fields for each product
or
b) use one single table with all availabe form fields (any range from current 300 to max 700), resulting in one table that will have MANY fields, of which only about 10% will be used for each product entry (a product should usualy not use more than 50-80 fields)
Which solution is best? keeping in mind that table maintenance (creation, updates and changes) to the table(s) will be done using meta data, so I will not need to do changes to the table(s) manually.
Thank you!
/**** UPDATE *****/
Just an update, even after this long time (and allot of additional experience gathered) I needed to mention that not normalizing your database is a terrible idea. What is more, a not normalized database almost always (just always from my experience) indicates a flawed application design as well.
i would have 3 tables:
product
id
name
whatever else you need
field
id
field name
anything else you might need
product_field
id
product_id
field_id
field value
Your key deciding factor is whether normalization is required. Even though you are only adding data using an application, you'll still need to cater for anomalies, e.g. what happens if someone's phone number changes, and they insert multiple rows over the lifetime of the application? Which row contains the correct phone number?
As an example, you may find that you'll have repeating groups in your data, like one person with several phone numbers; rather than have three columns called "Phone1", "Phone2", "Phone3", you'd break that data into its own table.
There are other issues in normalisation, such as transitive or non-key dependencies. These concepts will hopefully lead you to a database table design without modification anomalies, as you should hope for!
Pulegiums solution is a good way to go.
You do not want to go with the one-table-for-each-product solution, because the structure of your database should not have to change when you insert or delete a product. Only the rows of one or many tables should be inserted or deleted, not the tables themselves.
While it's possible that it may be necessary, having that many fields for something as simple as a product list sounds to me like you probably have a flawed design.
You need to analyze your potential table structures to ensure that each field contains no more than one piece of information (e.g., "2 hammers, 500 nails" in a single field is bad) and that each piece of information has no more than one field where it belongs (e.g., having phone1, phone2, phone3 fields is bad). Either of these situations indicates that you should move that information out into a separate, related table with a foreign key connecting it back to the original table. As pulegium has demonstrated, this technique can quickly break things down to three tables with only about a dozen fields total.