My problem is simple:
I have a column referencing people, and among all those persons one and only one has a specific status. What is the best way to represent this in a PostgreSQL database?
My first idea was to create a column of booleans all equal to false but for the specific person. It means I somehow also need to check that there is only one true in the entire column. However, it does not seem optimal as it means having one more bit per column, and as there might be quite a number of lines, it will waste data.
Second solution is to create a second table to reference the person. However it means creating a table just with one line...
Do you have any other idea of how to solve this problem?
Thank you!
PostgreSQL has an inheritance system that may work well for a problem like this.
CREATE TABLE people (...);
CREATE TABLE special_person ( ) INHERITS (people);
You can select * from people to pull all of the records, while still adding exclusive columns to the special_person.
Creating a table with one entry, with a foreign key to the main table seems reasonable to me. Having to maintain a status when you only care about one value seems wasteful and comparatively difficult to maintain.
Related
Let's say I have two Tables, called Person, and Couple, where each Couple record stores a pair of Person id's (also assume that each person is bound to at most another different person).
I am planning to support a lot of queries where I will ask for Person records that are not married yet. Do you guys think it's worthwhile to add a 'partnerId' field to Person? (It would be set to null if that person is not married yet)
I am hesitant to do this because the partnerId field is something that is computable - just go through the Couple table to find out. The performance cost for creating new couple will also increase because I have to do this extra book keeping.
I hope that it doesn't sound like I am asking two different questions here, but I felt that this is relevant. Is it a good/common idea to include extra fields that are redundant (computable/inferable by joining with other tables), but will make your query a lot easier to write and faster?
Thanks!
A better option is to keep the data normalized, and utilize a view (indexed, if supported by your rdbms). This gets you the convenience of dealing with all the relevant fields in one place, without denormalizing your data.
Note: Even if a database doesn't support indexed views, you'll likely still be better off with a view as the indexes on the underlying tables can be utilized.
Is there always a zero to one relationship between Person and Couples? i.e. a person can have zero or one partner? If so then your Couple table is actually redundant, and your new field is a better approach.
The only reason to split Couple off to another table is if one Person can have many partners.
When someone gets a partner you either write one record to the Couple table or update one record in the Person table. I argue that your Couple table is redundant here. You haven't indicated that there is any extra info on the Couple record besides the link, and it appears that there is only ever zero or one Couple record for every Person record.
How about one table?
-- This is psuedo-code, the syntax is not correct, but it should
-- be clear what it's doing
CREATE TABLE Person
(
PersonId int not null
primary key
,PartnerId int null
foreign key references Person (PersonId)
)
With this,
Everyone on the system has a row and a PersonId
If you have a partner, they are listed in the PartnerId column
Unnormalized data is always bad. Denormalized data, now, that can be beneficial under very specific circumstances. The best advice I ever heard on this subject it to first fully normalize your data, assess performance/goals/objectives, and then carefully denormalize only if it's demonstrably worth the extra overhead.
I agree with Nick. Also consider the need for history of the couples. You could use row versioning in the same table, but this doesn't work very well for application databases, works best in a in a DW scenario. A history table in theory would duplicate all the data in the table, not just the relationship. A secondary table would give you this flexibility to add additional information about the relationship including StartDate and EndDate.
I am building a community site where logon will be by email and members will be able to change their name/nick name.
Do you think I should keep member name/nick name in my members table with other properties of member or create another table, write member name/nick name on that table and associate member’s id.
I am in favour of second option because, I think it would be faster to pull members name from it.
Is it right/better way?
Update: reason is for other table is that I need to pull username for different sections. For example forums. Wouldn't it be faster to query a small table for each username for each post in a from topic?
I would keep it one table and set a unique constraint on Email in that table.
I can't see a single advantage in adding another table.
Why do you think the second option would be faster?
If nickname is a required one-to-one relation to member ID the appropriate place to store them is in the same table. This is still a indexed single-record search so it should be more-or-less as fast as your other option.
In fact, this solution would probably be faster, since you could get the nickname in the same SELECT as you get the other information.
Update to answer the update to the question:
The second table isn't any smaller in terms of the number of rows. The main factors in a SQL search are 1) number of records in the table and 2) number of possible matches from the indexed part of the search.
In this case, the number of records in your smaller table would be exactly the same as the larger table. And the number of possible matching records returned by the index will always be 1 because the member ID is unique.
The number of columns in the table you're searching is generally irrelevant to the time taken to return the data (the number of column you actually list in the SELECT statement can have an effect, but that's the same no matter which table you're searching).
SQL databases are very, very good at finding data. Structure your data correctly and let the database worry about getting it back to. Premature optimization is, as they say, the root of all evil.
Go with the first option: keep the name/nick name in the members table. There's no need to introduce an additional table, and the overhead of a join that goes with it, in this case.
Yes, associating member's ID to the other properties is the right way to go.
You can simply create an index on name to speed up your queries.
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 am refactoring an old Oracle 10g schema to try to introduce some normalization. In one of the larger tables, there is a text field that has at most, 10-15 possible values. In my mind, it seems that this field is an example of unnecessary data duplication and should be extracted to a separate table.
After examining the data, I cannot find one relevant piece of information that could be associated with that text value. Basically, if I pulled that value out and put it into its own table, it would be the only field in that table. It exists today as more of a 'flag' field. Should I create a two-column table with a surrogate key, keep it as it is, or do something entirely different? Am I doing more harm than good by trying to minimize data duplication on this field?
You might save some space by extracting the column to a separate table. This is called a lookup table. It can give you a couple of other benefits:
You can declare a foreign key constraint to the lookup table, so you can rely on the column in the main table never having any value other than the 10-15 values you want.
It's easy to query for a concise list of all permitted values, by querying the lookup table. This can be faster than using SELECT DISTINCT on the main table's column. It also returns values that are permitted, but not currently used in the main table.
If you change a value in the lookup table, it automatically applies to all rows in the main table that reference it.
However, creating a lookup table with one column is not strictly normalization. You're just replacing one value with another. The attribute in the main table either already supports a normal form, or not.
Using surrogate keys (vs. natural keys) also has nothing to do with normalization. A lot of people make this mistake.
However, if you move other attributes into the lookup table, attributes that depend only on the lookup value and therefore would create repeating groups (violating 3NF) in the main table if you left them there, then that would be normalization.
If you want normalization break it out.
I think of these types of data in DBs as the equivalent of enums in C,C++,C#. Mostly you put them in the table as documentation.
I often have an ID, Name, Description, and auditing columns for them (eg modified by, modified date, create date, create by, active.) The description field is rarely used.
Example (some might say there are more than just 2)
Gender
ID Name Audit Columns...
1 Male
2 Female
Then in your contacts you would have a GenderID column which would link to this one.
Of course you don't "need" the table. You could have external documentation somewhere that says 1=Male, 2=Female -- but I think these tables serve to document a system.
If it's really a free-entry text field that's not re-used somewhere else in the database, and there's just a single field without repeated instances, I'd probably go ahead and leave it as it is. If you're determined to break it out I'd create a 'validation' table with a surrogate key and the text value, then put the surrogate key in the base table.
Share and enjoy.
Are these 10-15 values actually meaningful, or are they really just flags? If they're meaningful pieces of text and it seems wasteful to replicate them, then sure create a lookup table. But if they're just arbitrary flag values, then your new table will be nothing more than a mapping from one arbitrary value to another, and not terribly helpful.
A completely separate question is whether all or most of the rows in your big table even have a value for this column. If not, then indeed you have a good opportunity for normalization and can create a separate table linking the primary key from your base table with the flag value.
Edit: One thing. If there's some chance that one of these "flag" values is likely to be wholesale replaced with another value at some point in the future, that would be another good reason to create a table.
I have a table that must reference another record, but of the same table. Here's an example:
Customer
********
ID
ManagerID (the ID of another customer)
...
I have a bad feeling about doing this. My other idea was to just have a separate table that just stored the relationship.
CustomerRelationship
***************
ID
CustomerID
ManagerID
I feel I may be over complicating such a trivial thing however, I would like to get some idea's on the best approach for this particular scenario?
Thanks.
There's nothing wrong about the first design. The second one, where you have an 'intermediate' table, is used for many-to-many relationships, which i don't think is yours.
BTW, that intermediate table wouldn't have and ID of its own.
Why do you have a "bad feeling" about this? It's perfectly acceptable for a table to reference its own primary key. Introducing a secondary table only increases the complexity of your queries and negatively impacts performance.
Can a Customer have multiple managers? If so, then you need a separate table.
Otherwise, a single table is fine.
You can use the first approach. See also Using Self-Joins
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the first approach, in fact Oracle has included the 'CONNECT BY' extension to SQL since at least version 6 which is intended to directly support this type of hierarchical structure (and possibly makes Oracle worth considering as your database if you are going to be doing a lot of this).
You'll need self-joins in databases which don't have something analogous, but that's also a perfectly fine and standard solution.
As a programmer I like the first approach. I like to have less number of tables. Here we are not even talking of normalization and why do we need more tables? That is just me.
Follow the KISS principle here: Keep it simple, (silly | stupid | stud | [whatever epithet starting with S you prefer]). Go with one table, unless you have a reason to need more.
Note that if the one-to-many/many-to-many relationship ends up being the case, you can extract the existing column into a table of its own, and fill in the new entries at that time.
The only reason I would ever recommend avoiding such self-referecing tables is that SQL Server does have a few spots where there are limitations with self-referencing tables.
For one, if you ever happen to come across the need for an indexed view, then you'd find out that if one of the tables used in a view definition is indeed self-referencing, you won't be able to create a clustered index on your view :-(
But apart from that - the design per se is sound and absolutely valid - go for it! I always like to keep things as simple as possible (but no simpler than that).
Marc