Good Morning,
in the design of a database, I have a table (TabA's call it) that could have relationships with four other tables. In the sense that this table can be connected both with the first of four, and with the second, and the third to the fourth, but could not have links with them; or it could have one (with any of the tables), or two links (always with two of any of them), and so on.
The table TabA I added four fields that refer to the four tables which could be "null" when they do not have any connection.
Wondering is this the kind of optimal design (say the four fields in the TabA) or you can make a better design for this type of situation?
Many thanks for your reply.
dave
In answer to the question and clarification in your comment, the answer is that your design can't be improved in terms of the number of foreign key columns. Having a specific foreign key column for every potential foreign key relationship is a best practice design.
However, the schema design itself seems questionable. I don't have enough information to tell whether the "Distributori_[N]_Livello" tables are a truly hierarchical structure or not. If it is, it is often possible to use a self-referential table for hierarchical structures rather than a set of N tables, as the diagram you linked seems to use. If you are able to refactor your design in such a way, it might be possible to reduce the number of foreign key columns required.
Whether this is possible or not is not for me to say given the data provided.
Related
I have the following partial database design:
All the tables are dependent on each other so the table bvd_docflow_subdocuments is dependent on the table bdd_docflow_subsets
and the table bvd_docflow_subdocuments is dependent on bvd_docflow_subsets. So I thought I could me smart and use foreign keys on every table (and ON DELETE CASCADE). However the FK are being drilldown how further I go in to the tables.
The problem is the table bvd_docflow_documents has no point having a reference to the 1docflow_documentset_id` PK / FK. Is there a way (and maybe my design is crappy) that only the table standing above it has an FK relationship between the tables and not all the tables above it.
Edit:
More explanation:
In the bvd_docflow_subsets table information is stored about objects to create documents. There is an relation between that table and bvd_docflow_subdocuments table (This table stores master data about all the documents for an subset. (docflow_subset_id is in both tables). This is the link between those to tables.
Going further down we also got the table bvd_docflow_documents this table contains the actual document data. The link between bvd_docflow_documents and bvd_docflow_subdocuments is bvd_docflow_subdocument_id.
On every table I got an foreign key defined so when data is removed on a table all the data linked to that data is also removed.
However when we look to the bvd_docflow_documents table it has all the foreign keys from the other tables (docflow_subset_id and docflow_documentset_id) and there is the problem. The only foreign key needed for that bvd_docflow_documents table is docflow_subdocument_id and no other.
Edit 2
I have changed my design further and removed information that I don't need after initial import of the data.
See the following link for the (total) databse design:
https://sqldbm.com/Project/SQLServer/Share/_AUedvNutCEV2DGLJleUWA
The tables subsets, subdocuments and documents have a many to many relationship so I thought a table in between those 3 documents_subdocuments is the way to go were I define all the different keys for those tables.
I am not used to the database design first and then build it. But, for everything there is a first time, and I try to do make a database that is using standards and is using the power of SQL Server the correct way.
I'll address the bottom-most table and ignore the rest for the most part.
But first some comments. Your schema is simply a model of a system. To provide feedback, one must understand this "system" and how it actually works to evaluate your model. In addition, it is important to understand your entities and your reasons for choosing them and modelling them in the specified manner. Without that understanding all of this guessing based on experience.
And another comment. Slapping an identity column into every table is just lazy modelling IMO. Others will disagree, but you need to also enforce all natural keys. Do you have natural keys? It is rare not to have any. Enforce those that do exist.
And one last comment. Stop the ridiculous pattern of prepending the column names with the table names. And you should really think long and hard about using very long table names. Given what you have, I sense you need a schema for your docflow stuff.
For the documents table, your current PK makes no sense. Again, you've slapped an identity column into the table. By itself, this column is a key for the table. The inclusion of any other columns does not make the key any more "unique" - that inclusion is logical nonsense. Following your pattern, you would designate the identity column as the primary key. But ...
According to your image, the documents table is related to one and only one subdocument. You added a foreign key to that table - which matches the image. You also added additional columns and foreign keys to the "higher" tables. So now a document "points" to a specific subdocument. It also points to a specific subset - which may have no relationship to the subdocument. The same thought applies to the other FK. I have a doubt that this is logically correct. So why do these columns (and related FKs) exist? Perhaps this is the result of premature optimization - which everyone knows is the root of all evil coding. Again, it is impossible to know if this is "right" or even "useful" for your model.
To answer your question "... is there a way", the answer is obviously yes. You remove the columns of which you complain. You added them - Why? Is this perhaps a problem with the tool you are using?
And some last comments. There is nothing special about "varchar(50)". Perhaps this is a place holder that will be updated later. It may also be another sign of laziness. And generally speaking, columns with names like "type" and "code" tend to be foreign keys to "lookup" tables - because people like to add, modify, or remove these sorts categorization values over time. I'm also concerned about the column name overlap among the tables. "Location" exists in multiple tables, as do action_code and action_id. And a column named "id" (action_id) suggests a lookup to another table - is it? Should it be? Is there a relationship between action_id and action_code? From a distance it is impossible to answer any of these questions.
But designing a database is more art than science. Sometimes you just need to create something, populate it with some sample data, and then determine if it works for your needs. Everyone will get something wrong in the first try. That is expected; that is how you learn. The most difficult part is actually completing your first attempt.
I'm designing a database from scratch and I'm wondering if the way I'm using one-to-one relationships is correct.
Imagine I have a table that needs the columns city and country_id, the first being alphanumeric and the second being a foreign key to another table. Should I place these in a locations table and use a one-to-one relationship?
Another example:
I have a table with the factory information of a device like the serial number and other fields. These will later be used to register a device in another table. Of course this is a one-to-one relationship, but should the columns of the first table be in the second table instead? Have in mind that the registrations table has another 4-5 columns.
I've read a lot of times that these relationships can often be omitted. However, I like the separation of concerns that creating a new table can give, in some cases.
Thanks in advance!
This may be a duplicate question, e.g. see:
SQL one to one relationship vs. single table
There's no perfect answer to this question as it depends on use case, but here's the rule of thumb I recommend abiding by: if you can already envision the potential need for separate tables, then I would err on the side of splitting them and using a 1:1 relationship. For example, imagine in the future that you want to have some kind of one-to-many relationship between some new table and the country table, or between some new table and the device table. In these cases you probably don't want city information mixed up with the former, and you probably don't want device registration information mixed up with the latter. By keeping your DB schema normalized, you can better future-proof it and you can mitigate the need for (likely extremely painful) updates that may have otherwise cropped up.
I have one database with users and one with questions. What I want is to ensure that every user can answer every question only once.
I thought of a database that has all the question id's as columns and all the user id's as records, but this gets very big (and slow I guess) when the questions and the user count grow.
Is there another way to do this with better performance?
You probably want a setup like this.
Questions table (QuestionID Primary Key, QuestionText)
Users table (UserID Primary Key, Username)
Answers table (QuestionID, UserID, Date) -- plus AnswerText/Score/Etc as needed.
In the Answers table the two first columns together form a compound primary key (QuestionID, UserID) and both are foreign keys to Question(QuestionID) and Users(UserID) respectively.
The compound primary key ensures that each combination of QuestionID/UserID is only allowed once. If you want to allow users to answer the same question multiple times you could extend the ¨compound primary key to include the date (it would then be a composite key).
This is a normalized design and should be efficient enough. It's common to use a surrogate primary key (like AnswerID) instead of the compound key and use a unique constraint instead to ensure uniqueness - the use of a surrogate key is often motivated by ease of use, but it's by no means necessary.
Diagram
Below is a diagram of my own table design, quite similar to the correct Answer by jpw. I made up a few column names to give more of a flavor of the nature of the table. I used Postgres data types.
As the last paragraph of that Answer discusses, I would go with a simple single primary key on the response_ ("Answers") table rather than a compound primary key combining fkey_user_ & fkey_question_.
Unrealistic
This diagram fits the problem description in the Question. However this design is not practicable. This scenario is for a single set of questions to be put to the user, only a single survey or quiz ever. In real life in a situation like a school, opinion survey, or focus group, I expect we would put more than one questionnaire to a user. But I will ignore that to directly address the Question as worded.
Also in some scenarios we might have versions of a question, as it is tweaked and revised over time when given on successive quizzes/questionnaires.
Performance
Your Question correctly identifies this problem as a Many-To-Many relationship between a user and a question, where each user can answer many questions and each question may be answered by many users. In relational database design there is only one proper way to represent a many-to-many. That way is to add a third child table, sometimes called a "bridge table", with a foreign key linking to each of the two parent tables.
In a diagram where you draw parent tables vertically higher up the page than child tables, I personally see such a many-to-many diagram as a butterfly or bird pattern where the child bridge table is the body/thorax and the two parents are wings.
Performance is irrelevant in a sense, as this is the only correct design. Fortunately, modern relational databases are optimized for such situations. You should see good performance for many millions of records. Especially if you a sequential number as your primary key values. I tend to use UUID data type instead; their arbitrary bit values may have less efficient index performance when table size reaches the millions (but I don't know the details.
Consider a data structure such as the below where the user has a small number of fixed settings.
User
[Id] INT IDENTITY NOT NULL,
[Name] NVARCHAR(MAX) NOT NULL,
[Email] VNARCHAR(2034) NOT NULL
UserSettings
[SettingA],
[SettingB],
[SettingC]
Is it considered correct to move the user's settings into a separate table, thereby creating a one-to-one relationship with the users table? Does this offer any real advantage over storing it in the same row as the user (the obvious disadvantage being performance).
You would normally split tables into two or more 1:1 related tables when the table gets very wide (i.e. has many columns). It is hard for programmers to have to deal with tables with too many columns. For big companies such tables can easily have more than 100 columns.
So imagine a product table. There is a selling price and maybe another price which was used for calculation and estimation only. Wouldn't it be good to have two tables, one for the real values and one for the planning phase? So a programmer would never confuse the two prices. Or take logistic settings for the product. You want to insert into the products table, but with all these logistic attributes in it, do you need to set some of these? If it were two tables, you would insert into the product table, and another programmer responsible for logistics data would care about the logistic table. No more confusion.
Another thing with many-column tables is that a full table scan is of course slower for a table with 150 columns than for a table with just half of this or less.
A last point is access rights. With separate tables you can grant different rights on the product's main table and the product's logistic table.
So all in all, it is rather rare to see 1:1 relations, but they can give a clearer view on data and even help with performance issues and data access.
EDIT: I'm taking Mike Sherrill's advice and (hopefully) clarify the thing about normalization.
Normalization is mainly about avoiding redundancy and relateded lack of consistence. The decision whether to hold data in only one table or more 1:1 related tables has nothing to do with this. You can decide to split a user table in one table for personal information like first and last name and another for his school, graduation and job. Both tables would stay in the normal form as the original table, because there is no data more or less redundant than before. The only column used twice would be the user id, but this is not redundant, because it is needed in both tables to identify a record.
So asking "Is it considered correct to normalize the settings into a separate table?" is not a valid question, because you don't normalize anything by putting data into a 1:1 related separate table.
Creating a new table with 1-1 relationships is not a reasonable solution. You might need to do it sometimes, but there would typically be no reason to have two tables where the user id is the primary key.
On the other hand, splitting the settings into a separate table with one row per user/setting combination might be a very good idea. This would be a three-table solution. One for users, one for all possible settings, and one for the junction table between them.
The junction table can be quite useful. For instance, it might contain the effective and end dates of the setting.
However, this assumes that the settings are "similar" to each other, in a SQL sense. If the settings are different such as:
Preferred location as latitude/longitude
Preferred time of day to receive an email
Flag to be excluded from certain contacts
Then you have a data-type problem when storing them in a table. So, the answer is "it depends". A lot of the answer depends on what the settings look like, how they will be used, and the type of constraints on them.
You're all wrong :) Just kidding.
On a very high load, high volume, heavily updated system splitting a table by 1:1 helps optimize I/O.
For example, this way you can place heavily read columns onto separate physical hard-drives to speed-up parallel reads (the 1-1 tables have to be in different "filegroups" for this). Or you can optimize table-level locks. Etc. Etc.
But this type of optimization usually does not happen until you have millions of rows and huge read/write concurrency
Splitting tables into distinct tables with 1:1 relationships between them is usually not practiced, because :
If the relationship is really 1:1, then integrity enforcement boils down to "inserts being done in all concerned tables, or none at all". Achieving this on the server side requires systems that support deferred constraint checking, and AFAIK that's a feature of the rather high-end systems. So in many cases the 1:1 enforcement is pushed over to the application side, and that approach has its own obvious downsides.
A case when splitting tables is nonetheless advisable, is when there are security perspectives, i.e. when not all columns can be updated by one user. But note that by definition, in such cases the relationship between the tables can never be strictly 1:1 .
(I also suggest you read carefully the discussion between Thorsten/Mike. You used the word 'normalization' but normalization has very little to do with your scenario - except if you were considering 6NF, which I think is rather unlikely.)
It makes more sense that your settings are not only in a separate table, but also use a on-to-many relationship between the ID and Settings. This way, you could potentially have a as many (or as few) setting as required.
UserSettings
[Settings_ID]
[User_ID]
[Settings]
In fact, one could make the same argument for the [Email] field.
This is more of a curiosity at the moment, but let's picture an environment where I bill on a staunch nickle&dime basis. I have many operations that my system does and they're all billable. All these operations are recorded across various tables (these tables need to be separate because they record very different kinds of information). I also want to micro manage my accounts receivables. (Forgive me if you find inconsistencies here, as this example is not a real situation)
Is there a somewhat standard way of substituting a foreign key with something that can verify that the identifier in column X on my billing table is an existing identifier within one of many operations record tables?
One idea is that when journalizing account activity, I could reference the operation's identifier as well as the operation (specifically, the table that it's in) and use a CHECK constraint. This is probably the best way to go so that my journal is not ambiguous.
Are there other ways to solve this problem, de-facto or proprietary?
Do non-relational databases solve this problem?
EDIT:
To rephrase my initial question,
Is there a somewhat standard way of substituting a foreign key with something that can verify that the identifier in column X on my billing table is an existing identifier within one of many (but not necessarily all) operations record tables?
No, there's no way to achieve this with a single foreign key column.
You can do basically one of two things:
in your table which potentially references any of the other x tables, have x foreign key reference fields (ideally: ID's of type INT), only one of which will ever be non-NULL at any given time. Each FK reference key references exactly one of your other data tables
or:
have one "child" table per master table with a proper and enforced reference, and pull together the data from those n child tables into a view (instead of a table) for your reporting / billing.
Or just totally forget about referential integrity - which I would definitely not recommend!
you can Implementing Table inheritance
see article
http://www.sqlteam.com/article/implementing-table-inheritance-in-sql-server
An alternative is to enforce complex referential integrity rules via a trigger. However,and not knowing exactly what your design is, usually when these types of questions are asked it is to work around a bad design. Look at the design first and see if you can change it to make this something that can be handled through FKs, they are much more managable than doing this sort of thing through triggers.
If you do go the trigger route, don't forget to enforce updates as well as inserts and make sure your trigger will work properly with a set-based multi-row insert and update.
A design alternative is to havea amaster table that is parent to all your tables with the differnt details and use the FK against that.