I have an app where users can log comments related to any specific entity that the system has and I wanted to know if there is a "best practice" way to handle the design of the db for this kind of feature.
For example: Three current entities (tables) deal are Question, Documentation, ReferenceMaterial (self explanatory what each hold). The user can leave a comment on any one of those particular items and all comments are simply a varchar field, user id, and date of comment. EDIT: Comments can also belong to more than one entity. For example, all Question entities belong to a Quiz or Test entity. Each of those (Quiz and Test), can also have comments associated with themselves. So you could run a report to see all comments left for a test and easily just query the Comment table for every record with that test foreign key, or you could limit your query to just the comments left for questions in that test, or a particular question itself. It offered a lot of flexibility END EDIT
Right now the way that I hvae this is one Comment table with a foreign key relationship with each of the other entity tables (i.e. fkQuestion, fkDocumentation, fkReferenceMaterial, etc). So all comments in the system are stored in this table and based on what page the user is on, I conduct the join to that particular entity's records.
Is there a best practice way of doing this?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Related
I have UserAccount table and other tables like Employee, Student etc. I want to have an audit like who created a student record or who created a certain employee record. Is it a good practice to have UserAccountId as foreign key in all other tables like Employee, Student etc? I am using hibernate if I mapped like this I have to maintain one to many relationship between UserAccount and All other Classes so code increases and for me that is a burden.
Well it breaks all normalisation rules. Have a link/href table instead. UserAccountID, EmployeeID(NULL), StudentID(NULL). Have one massive linked table like this. The foreign Keys needs to be nullable besides UserAccountID(Primary Key and Foreign Key).
"Good habit/practice" is subjective.
If the business domain includes the fact that the person who created an entity is a meaningful piece of information, and that this is likely to be a regular request by end users, then adding a "createdBy" attribute to your tables/classes is, indeed, good practice.
The best way to know whether this is true is to ask the product owner whether they would need a screen showing "all employees created by user x". If they say "no, only if something goes wrong", you have an audit requirement; if they say "yes, we'll use that regularly", it's an integral part of your business domain.
You may find, that your users want to know not just who created a row, but also who modified it. In that case, there are similar questions on SO.
I am creating a database which due to college security rules has to be an access database :( but its a website database and i have an invoiceing system. I have an user and product table and i am trying to add a comment table which relates to both of the these tables via the fields UID(user id) & PID(product id). however both of these field are already related to the invoice table. im sorry if this seems like a stupid question but i couldnt find a clear answer on this.
There is nothing saying that you can't have two tables that use the same foreign keys from two other tables. But, you need to ask yourself what you are trying to represent.
Are you trying to make arbitrary comments about each user and each product, or are you really trying to attach comments to an invoice line? If that is the case, then you should probably either put the comment in the Invoice table, or make a foreign key relations ship with that.
In the attached diagram I show both ways a Comments table could be related.
In our business application, we have a need to store user or system generated "comments" about a particular entity. For example, comments can be created about a customer, an order, or a purchase order. These comments all share many of the same characteristics, with the exception of the referenced entity.
All comments require the date, time, user, and comment text. They also require a foreign key to the referenced table so that you can look up comments for that particular entity.
Currently the application has a separate table for each type of comment (e.g. customer_comments, order_comments, purchaseOrder_comments). The schemas of these tables are all identical with respect to the date, time, user and comment text, but each has a FK to the respective table that the comment is for.
Is this the best design or is there a better design?
Personally, I'd create a single comment table and then use one intersection table per entity (customer, order, etc.) to link the comment with the entity.
you could put all these comments into one table comments and add another column commented_table, which would make it a polymorphic ManyToOne. some frameworks / orms (like Rails' ActiveRecord) do have built in support for that, if whatever you're using doesn't, it's basically as simple as adding another where clause
If it had been me, I think I would have had a single Comments table with an extra comment_type_id field that maps to whether the comment should be available for customer entities, order entities, etc... Somewhere else you'd need to have a comment_type table that comment_type_id refers to.
This way, if you decide to add an extra piece of meta-data to comments, you only have to do it in a single Comments table rather than in customer_comments, order_comments, etc...
So I know the convention for naming M-M relationship tables in SQL is to have something like so:
For tables User and Data the relationship table would be called
UserData
User_Data
or something similar (from here)
What happens then if you need to have multiple relationships between User and Data, representing each in its own table? I have a site I'm working on where I have two primary items and multiple independent M-M relationships between them. I know I could just use a single relationship table and have a field which determines the relationship type, but I'm not sure whether this is a good solution. Assuming I don't go that route, what naming convention should I follow to work around my original problem?
To make it more clear, say my site is an auction site (it isn't but the principle is similar). I have registered users and I have items, a user does not have to be registered to post an item but they do need to be to do anything else. I have table User which has info on registered users and Items which has info on posted items. Now a user can bid on an item, but they can also report a item (spam, etc.), both of these are M-M relationships. All that happens when either event occurs is that an email is generated, in my scenario I have no reason to keep track of the actual "report" or "bid" other than to know who bid/reported on what.
I think you should name tables after their function. Lets say we have Cars and People tables. Car has owners and car has assigned drivers. Driver can have more than one car. One of the tables you could call CarsDrivers, second CarsOwners.
EDIT
In your situation I think you should have two tables: AuctionsBids and AuctionsReports. I believe that report requires additional dictinary (spam, illegal item,...) and bid requires other parameters like price, bid date. So having two tables is justified. You will propably be more often accessing bids than reports. Sending email will be slightly more complicated then when this data is stored in one table, but it is not really a big problem.
I don't really see this as a true M-M mapping table. Those usually are JUST a mapping. From your example most of these will have additional information as well. For example, a table of bids, which would have a User and an Item, will probably have info on what the bid was, when it was placed, etc. I would call this table... wait for it... Bids.
For reporting items you might want what was offensive about it, when it was placed, etc. Call this table OffenseReports or something.
You can name tables whatever you want. I would just name them something that makes sense. I think the convention of naming them Table1Table2 is just because sometimes the relationships don't make alot of sense to an outside observer.
There's no official or unofficial convention on relations or tables names. You can name them as you want, the way you like.
If you have multiple user_data relationships with the same keys that makes absolutely no sense. If you have different keys, name the relation in a descriptive way like: stores_products_manufacturers or stores_products_paymentMethods
I think you're only confused because the join tables are currently simple. Once you add more information, I think it will be obvious that you should append a functional suffix. For example:
Table User
UserID
EmailAddress
Table Item
ItemID
ItemDescription
Table UserItem_SpamReport
UserID
ItemID
ReportDate
Table UserItem_Post
UserID -- can be (NULL, -1, '', ...)
ItemID
PostDate
Table UserItem_Bid
UserId
ItemId
BidDate
BidAmount
Then the relation will have a Role. For instance a stock has 2 companies associated: an issuer and a buyer. The relationship is defined by the role the parent and child play to each other.
You could either put each role in a separate table that you name with the role (IE Stock_Issuer, Stock_Buyer etc, both have a relationship one - many to company - stock)
The stock example is pretty fixed, so two tables would be fine. When there are multiple types of relations possible and you can't foresee them now, normalizing it into a relationtype column would seem the better option.
This also depends on the quality of the developers having to work with your model. The column approach is a bit more abstract... but if they don't get it maybe they'd better stay away from databases altogether..
Both will work fine I guess.
Good luck, GJ
GJ
15 ECTS credits worth of database design down the bin.. I really can't come up with the best design solution for my problem.
Which is this: Basically I'm making a tool that gathers a lot of information concerning the user. At the most the user would fill in 50 fields of data, ranging from simple checkboxes to text input. I'm designing the db right now (with mySql) and can't decide whether or not to use a single User table with all of those fields, or to have a table for each category of input.
One example would be "type of payment". This one has three options and if I went with the "table" way I would add a table paymentType and give it binary fields for each payment type. Then I would need and id table to identify which paymentType the user has chosen whereas if I use a single user table, the data would already be there.
The site will probably see a lot of users (tv, internet and radio marketing) so I'm concerned which alternative would be the best.
I'll be happy to provide more details if you need more to base a decision.
Thanks for reading.
Read this article "Database Normalization Basics", and come back here if you still have questions. It should help a lot.
The most fundamental idea behind these decisions, as you will see in this article, is that each table should represent one and only one "thing", and each field should relate directly and only to that thing.
In your payment types example, it probably makes sense to break it out into a separate table if you anticipate the need to store additional information about each payment type.
Create your "Type of Payment" table; there's no real question there. That's proper normalization and the power behind using relational databases. One of the many reasons to do so is the ability to update a Type of Payment record and not have to touch the related data in your users table. Your join between the two tables will allow your app to see the updated type of payment info by changing it in just the 1 place.
Regarding your other fields, they may not be as clear cut. The question to ask yourself about each field is "does this field relate only to a user or does it have meaning and possible use in its own right?". If you can never imagine a field having meaning outside of the context of a user you're safe leaving it as a field on the user table, otherwise do the primary key-foreign key relationship and put the information in its own table.
If you are building a form with variable inputs, I wouldn't recommend building it as one table. This is inflexible and dirty.
Normalization is the key, though if you end up with a key/value setup, or effectively a scalar type implementation across many tables and can't cache:
a) the form definition from table data and
b) the joined result of storage (either a caching view or otherwise)
c) or don't build in proper sharding
Then you may hit a performance boundary.
In this KVP setup, you might want to look at something like CouchDB or a less table-driven storage format.
You may also want to look at trickier setups such as serialized object storage and cache-tables if your internal data is heavily relative to other data already in the database
50 columns is a lot. Have you considered a table that stores values like a property sheet? This would only be useful if you didn't need to regularly query the values it contains.
INSERT INTO UserProperty(UserID, Name, Value)
VALUES(1, 'PaymentType', 'Visa')
INSERT INTO UserProperty(UserID, Name, Value)
VALUES(1, 'TrafficSource', 'TV')
I think I figured out a great way of solving this. Thanks to a friend of mine for suggesting this!
I have three tables, Field {IdField, FieldName, FieldType}, FieldInput {IdInput, IdField, IdUser} and User { IdUser, UserName... etc }
This way it becomes very easy to see what a user has answered, the solution is somewhat scalable and it provides a good overview. I will constrain the alternatives in another layer, farther away from the db. I believe it's a tradeoff worth doing.
Any suggestions or critics to this solution?