I'm looking into using a company that uses Yodlee's data aggregation service and have looked some sample output that includes account information and transactions. I noticed that the unique ID and account number for the account are not housed in the table containing transactions. How do people typically go about mapping transactions to a particular count when placing multiple accounts into a relational database? It seems to me that there is no field to link the table containing account information and transaction information together.
You can use the identifier called "itemAccountId" which is a Yodlee internal id tied to uniquely identify an account. This identifier is present for an account as well as each transactions. Using this id you can segregate the transactions under same account.
Please go through the sample responses of these two APIs getItemSummaryForItem1 and executeUserSearchRequest
Related
I have a web application that reads data from a DB.
I have different users in my web-app and I'm thinking of delegating the functionality to determine "who can see what" to the DB instead than to the web-app.
Example:
On my DB I'm storing data for different customers. On the same table, I'm storing data for different customers, each row has a "customer" field that identifies the customer to which the row belongs. When the web-app queries the previous table, as the users in the DB are equal to the users in the web-app, the DB will return to the web-app only the rows to which the user has permissions to SELECT.
To implement this I have thought on the following process:
Use ROW-LEVEL SECURITY ACCESS to create a role per each customer. That role will only allow querying rows with Customer='CUSTOMER_NAME'
As the same CUSTOMER could have different types of users (EX: Marketing/Sales users). I want to create a common role for all customers that will filter the data that each type of user could SELECT.
I don't know if I could create a ROLE that will limit the rows that a certain user can select (EX: All the rows with CUSTOMER='CUSTOMER_NAME') and then grant another ROLE to the same user that will limit more the rows that the user can select (EX: All the rows related to a certain department: Marketing/Sales).
Are the roles applied from more restrictive to less? If so, my desired outcome is to have a single "Marketing" role with access to all Marketing-related rows and then to have a single "Customer" role with access to all Customer-related rows. Then the user with those roles will only be able to see Marketing related rows but only for a certain customer.
Is there any other way to do this?
For an application I am writing, there are two types of "users", those who have made accounts and those who have not, virtual_users. These two types are nearly identical, except account_users have a password, and email is required and must be unique amongst all account_users, although it can be the same as any number for virtual_users. A large number of tables have a column that references users, which should include both, and 90% of app functionality treats them as interchangeable. What is the best way of handling this? Some options I have considered:
-Put both types of users in the same table and have a complicated constraints regarding uniqueness, basically, if password is not NULL, email must be unique among all users where password is not NULL. I have no idea how I would write this constraint. On the few occasions I only want account_users query for only users who have a password. This seems like the best solution if I can figure out how to write the constraint.
-Have Account_users inherit from Virtual_usersand Virtual_users has an additional column password and unique constraints on email. From here there are two potential options:
---Have a Users table which includes two columns account_user_id and virtual_user_id one of which is NULL and one of which corresponds to the appropriate user. When other tables need to reference a user, they reference this table. Have all my queries server side for users query both tables and combine.
---When other tables need to reference they reference either table. I don't think this is possible. Have all my queries server side for users query both tables and combine.
Any advice would be appreciated.
I assume the scenario is you have a system which some parts require the user to be signed into a registered account, and others do not, but you'd still like to track users.
Postgres has table inheritance. You could use that, but I'd be concerned about the caveats.
You could put them all into one table and use some sort of flag, like Single Table Inheritance, but then you run into constraint issues. You would then enforce constraints in the model. This should be fine if you have a strong model.
You could have separate accounts and users. Rather than one being a special case of the other, they key is thinking of them as two conceptually different things. In OO terms, an account has a user.
-- Visitors to the site who haven't signed up.
create table users (
id serial,
-- The unverified email they might have given you.
email text,
-- Any other common information like a tracking token
token text
);
-- Users who have registered.
create table accounts (
id serial,
user_id int references users(id),
-- Their verified email.
email text not null,
-- Hashed, of course.
password text not null
-- any additional information only for accounts
);
I like this because there are no flags involved, users and accounts can have separate constraints, and the accounts table doesn't get bloated with users that showed up once and never came back.
You'd access complete account information with a simple join.
select accounts.*, users.token
from accounts
join users on accounts.user_id = users.id
where accounts.id = ?
If you want to delete an account you can do so without losing the underlying user information.
delete from accounts where accounts.id = ?
Systems which require an account use accounts. Systems which don't use users. Systems which behave differently for users and accounts can check if a user has an account easily.
select accounts.id
from accounts
where accounts.user_id = ?
User tracking is associated with the users table, so you have a consistent record of a user's behavior before and after they register.
We currently have a SQL database with a table that holds online sales for our company, which sells products using other websites (say, Amazon). The table schema has been set up to hold specific sale data/attributes provided by the website our items are currently sold on (say, Site A).
We are expanding sales to other websites that provide different attributes than Site A uses when an item is sold (e.g. Site A might provide a unique sales id number, and site B might not provide a unique sales id number, but also provide some other info that Site A doesn't provide that we still need to capture).
The question is do I add a separate table for sales on each 'site' that we sell on, as the schema will be different, or try to combine all sales into one table, no matter the platform, leaving some columns null if it doesn't pertain to the particular platform? Or maybe a hybrid approach, separating only the attributes that aren't common among the two sites into separate tables, while a "master" sales table holds attributes that are shared (sale_price, sale_date, etc)?
There are also other tables in play that hold internal information (product Ids, costs, etc), that are linked to the sales table via a unique identifier. Whichever route I choose, I'd need come up with a unique identifier I could use across all tables (auto incremented sale_id, e.g.), and store that in a table for reference/joins.
Any suggestions are welcomed!
A sale is a sale >> same data belongs to the same table. I would definitely not recommend splitting your sales to several tables as this creates lots of difficulty for all that might follow: sales statistics and so on. Try to keep all sales in one table.
If it's a very small project, it might be the best shot to integrate the different fields into one table. Otherwise you might try to create profiles for every sale platform: In this case, use an Entity-Attribute-Value model.
Do not add a table for each site. It sounds like you have a many to many relationship between sites and attributes, so set up your database that way. Also, for any unique identifier you need, create it yourself.
I read this on msdn:
Views let different users to see data in different ways, even when they are using the same
data at the same time. This is especially useful when users who have many different interests and skill levels share the same database.
For example, a view can be created that retrieves only the data for the customers with whom an account manager deals. The view can determine which data to retrieve based on the login ID of the account manager who uses the view.
My question:
For the above example , i would have to have a column named Userid/LoginId on my table on which the view is created so that i can apply a check option in the view for this column. and then if a user with a name not in that column tries to enter data , then he/she is blocked.
Yes, you are right. You should
add a column with the user's login or database user name (say you call it username),
each row should have username populated with the login or database name of the person who is allowed to see that row
you can then build a view where you use the builtin functions SUSER_SNAME() (for logins) or USER_NAME (for database names) in your WHERE clause to filter only the rows the user is allowed to see
See Granting Row-Level Permissions in SQL Server (ADO.NET).
You don't have to add a column to the table: it could be more appropriate to instead add a new table to model the relationship.
There's a deisgn rule of thumb that states a table should model an entity or a relationship but not both. Let's say the table in question models the companies a customer owns (i.e. an entity table) and the business rule states the the account manager can only see companies relating to customers he looks after.
Is account manager an attribute of a company? No, so account_manager should not be a column (attribute) in the Companies table.
Is there a direct relationship between account_manager and a company? No, so a relationship table between is not due here (because the relationship is indirect).
Rather, the direct relationships are between account manager and customer, and between customer and company respectively. There should be two tables whose sole purpose is to model these relationships.
There is a regular Users (UserID, UserName, Email, Password) table which handles user registrations.
Which other tables should be added in order to handle paid membership with 2 types of paid subscriptions - Monthly and Yearly.
I think you may want to distinguish between membership details and transactions. I like the idea of adding a membership_type column (should be a tinyint column with a separate lookup table), then having a membership_expiration column as well. If you want to track each membership purchase, you can have a separate transaction table that tracks purchases. This also gives you the ability to expand to other types of purchases or transactions in the future without modifying the data model.
How about adding a membership field to the users table with one of three values- null, monthly, or yearly?