I have a question about implementing search functionality. I have a table which contains 2 user id's and details of transaction between them (title, date, description, etc.). I want to allow user to search transactions by any of these criteria (so typing "Mike salary 2013" would result in transactions from 2013 with Mike, which title or description contained word "salary").
This can be accomplished by joining required tables, creating a search string and filtering every input word by that string, but what concerned me, was that Transaction table is designed to have ultimately millions of rows - so joining multiple tables + string operations from database's side could be slow.
My another idea was to create separate column for search string - that string would be created with creation of transaction and would contain all necessary information. The problem is when user decides to change his/her name (users can do that form their "Profile" page). The search strings in all transactions assigned to that user would be outdated.
So here's my question: is it better to search all entries and update search strings after user changes their name (it would be costly, but users don't change their names often) or give up on this whole "search string column" idea and do it with old-fashioned joins? Or maybe there is another option?
Thanks for your help :)
You should use Full Text Search. It actually combines both of your ideas. You can run FTS queries on multiple columns and multiple tables. Behind the scenes, FTS uses an index, which is similar to your "search string column" idea.
Related
To keep this as short as possible I'm going to use and example.
So let's say I have a simple database that has the following tables:
company - ( "idcompany", "name", "createdOn" )
user - ( "iduser", "idcompany", "name", "dob", "createdOn" )
event - ( "idevent", "idcompany", "name", "description", "date", "createdOn" )
Many users can be linked to a single company as well as multiple events and many events can be linked to a single company. All companies, users and events have columns as show above in common. However, what if I wanted to give my customers the ability to add custom fields to both their users and their events for any unique extra information they wish to store. These extra fields would be on a company wide basis, not on a per record basis ( so a company adding a custom field to their users would add it to all of their users not just one specific user ). The custom fields also need to be sesrchable and have the ability to be reported on, ideally automatically with some sort of report wizard. Considering the database is expected to have lots of traffic as well as lots of custom fields, what is the best solution for this?
My current research and findings in possible solutions:
To have generic placeholder columns such as "custom1", "custom2" etc.
** This is not viable as there will eventually be too many custom columns and there will be too many NULL values stored in the database
To have 3x tables per current table. eg: user, user-custom-field, user-custom-field-value. The user table being the same. The user-custom-field table containing the information about the new field such as name, data type etc. And the user-custom-field-value table containing the value for the custom field
** This one is more of a contender if it were not for its complexity and table size implications. I think it will be impossible to avoid a user-custom-field table if I want to automatically report on these fields as I will have to store the information on how to report on these fields here. However, In order to pull almost any data you would have to do a million joins on the user-custom-field-value table as well as the fact that your now storing column data as rows which in a database expected to have a lot of traffic as well as a lot of custom fields would soon cause a problem.
Create a new user and event table for each new company that is added to the system removing the company id from within those tables and instead using it in the table name ( eg user56, 56 being the company id ). Then allowing the user to trigger DB commands that add the new custom columns to the tables giving them the power to decide if it has a default value or auto increments etc.
** Everytime I have seen this solution it has always instantly been shut down by people saying it would be unmanageable as you would eventually get thousands of tables. However nobody really explains what they mean by unmanageable. Firstly as far as my understanding goes, more tables is actually more efficient and produces faster search times as the tables are much smaller. Secondly, yes I understand that making any common table changes would be difficult but all you would have to do is run a script that changes all your tables for each company. Finally I actually see benefits using this method as it would seperate company data making it impossible for one to accidentally access another's data via a potential bug, plus it would potentially give the ability to back up and restore company data individually. If someone could elaborate on why this is perceived as a bad idea It would be appreciated.
Convert fully or partially to a NoSQL database.
** Honestly I have no experience with schemaless databases and don't really know how dynamic user defined fields on a per record basis would work ( although I know it's possible ). If someone could explain the implications of the switch or differences in queries and potential benefits that would be appreciated.
Create a JSON column in each table that requires extra fields. Then add the extra fields into that JSON object.
** The issue I have with this solution is that it is nearly impossible to filter data via the custom columns. You would not be able to report on these columns and until you have received and processed them you don't really know what is in them.
Finally if anyone has a solution not mentioned above or any thoughts or disagreements on any of my notes please tell me as this is all I have been able to find or figure out for myself.
A typical solution is to have a JSON (or XML) column that contains the user-defined fields. This would be an additional column in each table.
This is the most flexible. It allows:
New fields to be created at any time.
No modification to the existing table to do so.
Supports any reasonable type of field, including types not readily available in SQL (i.e. array).
On the downside,
There is no validation of the fields.
Some databases support JSON but do not support indexes on them.
JSON is not "known" to the database for things like foreign key constraints and table definitions.
Background
I work for a real estate technology company. An upcoming project involves building out functionality to allow users to affix tags/labels (plural) to a MLS listing (real estate property). The second requirement is to allow a user to search by one or more tags. We won't be dealing with keeping track of counts or building word clouds or anything like that.
Solutions Researched
I found this SO Q&A and think the solution is pretty straightforward and have attempted to adapt some ideas from it below. Also, I understand that JSONB support is much better in 9.5 and it may be a possibility. If you have any insight here I'd love to hear your thoughts as well in an answer.
Attempted Solution
Table: Tags
Columns: ID, OwnerID, TagName, CreatedDate
Table: TaggedItems
Columns: ID, TagID (references above), PropertyID, CreatedDate, (Possibly some denormalized data to assist with presenting search results; property name, original listor, etc.)
Inserting new tags should be straightforward. Searching tags should also be straightforward since the user will select one or multiple tags from a searchable dropdown, thus affording me access to the actual TagID which I can use to query the TaggedItems table. When showing the full profile view for a listing, I can use it's PropertyID and the UserID to query my tables for the existence of one or more Tags to display in the view.
Edit: It's probably worth noting that we don't keep an entire database of properties, we access them via an API partner; hence the two table solution and not 3.
If you want to Nth normalize you would actually use 3 tables.
1 Property/Listing
2 Tags
3 CrossReferenceBetween the Two
The 3rd table creates a many to many relationship between the other 2 tables.
In this case only the 3 rd table would carry both the tagid and the property.
Going with 2 tables if fine too depending on how large of use you have as a small string won't bloat your databse too much.
I would say that it is strongly preferable to separate the tags to a separate table when you need to do lookups and more on it. Otherwise you have to have a delimited list which then what happens if a user injects a delimiter into their tag value? Also how do you plan on searching the delimited list? You will constantly expand that to a table or use regex and the regex might give you false positives as "some" will match "some" and "something" depending on how you write your code.......
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.
I would like broad guidelines before hitting the details, and thus as brief as I can on two issues (this might be far too little info):
Supplier has more than one address. Address is made up of fields. Address line 1 and 2 is free text. The rest are keys to master data tables that has FK and name. Id to country. Id to province. ID to municipality. ID to city. ID to suburb. I would like to employ FTS on address line 1 and 2 and also all the master data table name columns so that user can find suppliers whose address match what they capture. This is thus across various master data tables. Note that a province or suburb etc is not only single word, e.g. meadow park.
Supplier provides many goods and services. These goods and services are a 4 level hierarchy (UNSPSC) of parent and child items. The goods or service is at the lowest level of the 4 level hierarchy, but hits on the higher levels should be returned as well. Supplier linked to lowest items of hierarchy. Would like to employ FTS to find supplier who provides goods and services across the 4 level hierarchy.
The idea is this to find matches, return suppliers, show rank, show where it hit. If I'm unable to show the hit, the result makes less sense, e.g. search for the word "car" will hit on care, cars, cardiovascular, cards etc. User can type in more than one word, e.g. "car service".
Should the FTS indexes be on only the text fields on the master data tables, and my select thus inner join on FTS fields? Should I create views and indexes on those? How do I show the hit words?
Should the FTS indexes be on only the text fields on the master data tables...?
When you have fields across multiple tables that need to be searched in a single query and then ranked, the best practice is to combine those fields into a single field through an ETL process. I recently posted an answer where I explained the benefits of this approach:
Why combine them into 1 table? This approach results in better ranking than if you were to apply full text indexes to each existing
table. The former solution produces a single rank whereas the latter
will produce a different rank for each table and there is no accurate
way to resolve multiple ranks (which are based on completely different
scales) into 1 rank. ...
How can you combine them into 1 table? You will need some sort of ETL process which either runs on a schedule (which may be easier to
implement but will result in lag time where your full text index is
out of sync with the master tables) or gets run on demand whenever
your master tables are modified (either via triggers or by hooking
into an event in your data layer).
How do I show the hit words?
Unfortunately SQL Server Full Text does not have a feature that extracts or highlights the words/phrases that were matched during the search. The answers to this question have tips on how to roll your own solution. There's also a 3rd party product called ThinkHighlight which is a CLR assembly that helps with highlighting (I've never used it so I can't vouch for it).
...search for the word "car" will hit on care, cars, cardiovascular, cards etc...
You didn't explicitly ask about this but you should be aware that by default "car" will not match "care", etc. What you're looking to do is a wildcard search. Your full text query will need to use an asterisk and should look something like this: SELECT * FROM CONTAINSTABLE(MyTable, *, '"car*"') Be aware that wildcards are only available when using CONTAINS/CONTAINSTABLE (boolean searches), not FREETEXT/FREETEXTTABLE (natural language searches). Based on how you describe your use case, it sounds like you will need to modify your user's search string to add the wildcards. You'll need to do this anyway if you use CONTAINS/CONTAINSTABLE in order to add the boolean operators and quotes (ex: User types car service. You change it to "car*" AND "service*".)
If I have multiple tables all from the same XML source, but one of those tables has a number of different items in one column, and no column specifying who those items belong to, while another table has a list of each person and an ID for each person is it possible to link the two tables, or would the person ID or name need to be present in the items table?
In a similar situation, I made a VBA routine that would crawl the database in search of whatever I entered.
Systematically following the few clues I had yielded a lot of information. The routine itself was just a few hundred lines of code.
Open Database
Get all Tables
For Each Table
Get all Fields
For Each Field
If Field type is text ... and
If Field size is not TOO Long ...
Search for string
If found, write to a results bucket
Next
Next
So my answer is Yes, it can be done. But,
There is painstaking work to get it running (depends really on your VBA expertise)
The more you know about your real-world connections, the better you can exploit the tool.