I'm having a problem with my students using multi-valued fields in access and getting confused about normalisation as a result.
Here is what I can make out. Given a 1-to-many relationship, e.g.
Articles Comments
-------- --------
artID{PK} commID{PK}
text text
artID{FK}
Access makes it possible to store this information into what appears to be one table, something like
Articles
--------
artID{PK}
text
comment
+ value
"value" referring to multiple comment values for the comment "column", which access actually stores as a separate table. The specifics of how the values are stored - table, its PK and FK - is completely hidden, but it is possible to query the multi-valued field, e.g. in the example above with the query
INSERT INTO article( [comment].Value )
VALUES ('thank you')
WHERE artID = 1;
But the query doesn't quite reveal the underlying structure of the hidden table implementing the multi-valued field.
Given this (disaster, in my view) - my problem is how to help newcomers to database design and normalisation understand what Access is offering them, why it may not be helpful, and that it is not a reason to ignore the basics of the relational model. More specifically:
Are there better ways, besides queries as above, to reveal the structure behind multi-valued fields?
Are there good examples of where the multi-valued field is not good enough, and shows the advantage of normalising explicitly?
Are there straightforward ways to obtain the multi-select visual output of Access multi-values, but based on separate, explicit tables?
Thanks!
I cannot give you advice in using this feature, because I never used it; however, I can give you reasons not to use it.
I want to have full control on what I'm doing. This is not the case for multi-valued fields, therefore I don't use them.
This feature is not expandable. What if you want to add a date field to your comments, for instance?
It is sometimes necessary to upsize an Access (backend) database to a "big" database (SQL Server, Oracle). These Databases don't offer such a feature. It is often the customer who decides which database has to be used. Recently I had to migrate an Access application (frontend) using an Oracle backend to a SQL-Server backend because my client decided to drop his Oracle server. Therefore it is a good idea to restrict yourself to use only common features.
For common tasks like editing lookup tables I created generic forms. My existing solutions will not work with multi-valued fields.
I have a (self-made) tool that synchronizes changes in the structure of the database on my developer’s site with the database on the client’s site. This tool cannot deal with multi-valued fields.
I have tools for the security management that can grant SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE rights on tables or revoke them. Again, the management tool does not work with multi-valued fields.
Having a separate table for the comments allows you to quickly inspect all the comments (by opening the table). You cannot do this with multi-valued fields.
You will not see the 1 to n relation between the articles and the comments in a database diagram.
With a separate table you can choose whether you want to cascade deletes to the details table or not. If you don't, you will not be able to delete an article as long as there are comments attached to it. This can be desirable, if you want to protect the comments from being deleted inadvertently.
It is important to realize the difference between physical and logical relationships. Today the whole internet and web services (SOAP) quite much realizes on a data format that is multi-value in nature.
When you represent multi-value data with a relational database (such as Access), then behind the scenes you are using a traditional (and legitimate) relation. I cannot stress that as such, then the use of multi-value columns in Access is in fact a LEGITIMATE relational model.
The fact that table is not exposed does not negate this issue. In fact, if you represent an invoice (master record, and repeating details) as a XML data cube, then we see two things:
1) you can build and represent that invoice with a relational database like Access
2) such a relational data model that is normalized can ALSO be represented as a SINGLE xml string.
3) deleting the XML record (or string) means that cascade delete of the child rows (invoice details) MUST occur.
So while it is true that Multi-Value fields been added to Access to deal with SharePoint, it is MOST important to realize that such data can be mapped to a relational database (if you could not do this, then Access could not consume that XML data using relational database tables as ACCESS CURRENTLY DOES RIGHT NOW).
And with the web such as XML, and SharePoint then the need to consume and manage and utilize such data is not only widespread, but is in fact a basic staple of the internet.
As more and more data becomes of a complex nature, we find the requirement for multi-value data exploding in use. Anyone who used that so called "fad" the internet is thus relying and using data that is in fact VERY OFTEN XML and is multi-value (complex) in nature.
As long as the logical (not physical) relational data model is kept, then use of multi-value columns to represent such data is possible and this is exactly what Access is doing (it is mapping the relational data model to a complex model). Note that the complex (xml) data model does NOT necessary have to be relational in nature. However, if you ARE going to map such data to Access then the complex multi-value model MUST CONFORM TO A RELATIONAL data model.
This is EXACTLY what is occurring in Access.
The fact that such a correct and legitimate math relational model is not exposed is of little issue here. Are we to suggest that because Excel does not expose the binary codes used then users will never learn about computers? Or perhaps we all must program in assembler so we all correctly learn how computers works.
At the end of the day, who cares and why does this matter? The fact that people drive automatic cars today does not toss out the concept that they are using different gears to operate that car. The idea that we shut down all of society because someone is going to drive an automatic car or in this case use complex data would be galactic stupid on our part.
So keep in mind that extensions to SQL do exist in Access to query the multi-value data, but as well pointed out here those underlying tables are not exposed. However, as noted, exposing such tables would STILL REQUIRE one to not change or mess with cascade delete since that feature is required TO MAINTAIN A INTERSECTION OF FEATURES and a CORRECT MATH relational model between the complex data model (xml) and that of using two related tables to represent such data.
In other words, you can use related tables to represent the complex data model IF YOU REMOVE the ability of users to play with the referential integrity options. The RI options MUST remain as set in those hidden tables else such data will not be able to make the trip BACK to the XML or complex data model of which it was consumed from.
As noted, in regards to users being taught how gasoline reacts with oxygen for that of learning to drive a car, or using a word processor and being forced to learn a relational model and expose the underlying tables makes little sense here.
However, the points made here in regards to such tables being exposed are legitimate concerns.
The REAL problem is SQL server and Oracle etc. cannot consume or represent that complex data WHILE ACCESS CAN CONSUME such data.
As noted, the complex data ship has LONG ago sailed! XML, soap, and the basic technologies of the internet are based on this complex data model.
In effect, SQL server, Oracle and most databases cannot that consume this multi-value data represent it without users having to create and model such data in a relational fashion is a BIG shortcoming of SQL server etc.
Access stands alone in this ability to consume this data.
So, for anyone who used a smartphone, iPad or the web, you are using basic technologies that are built around using complex data, something that Access now allows.
It is likely that the rest of the industry will have to follow suit given that more and more data is complex in nature. If the database industry does not change, then the mainstream traditional relational database system will NOT be the resting place of such data.
A trend away from storing data in related tables is occurring at a rapid pace right now and products like SharePoint, or even Google docs is proof of this concept. So Access is only reacting to market pressures and it is likely that other database vendors will have to follow suit or simply give up on being part of the "fad" called the internet.
XML and complex data structures are STAPLE and fact of our industry right now – this is not an issue we all should run away from, but in fact embrace.
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
kallal#msn.com
The technical discussion is interesting. I think the real problem lies in student understanding. Because it is available in Access students will use it, and initially it will probably provide a simple solution to some design problems. The negatives will occur later when they try and use the data. Maybe a simple example demonstrating the problems would persuade some students to avoid using multi-valued fields ? Maybe an example of storing the data in another, more usable format would help ?
Good luck !
Peter Bullard
MS Access does a great job of simplifying database management and abstracting out a lot of complexity. This however makes the learning of dbms concepts a bit difficult. Have you tried using other 'standard' dbms tools like MySQL (or even sqlite). From a learning perspective they may be better.
I know this post is old. But, it's not quite the same as every other post I've seen on this topic. This one has someone making a good case for using Multi Valued Fields...
As someone who is trying who is still trying very hard to get their head around Access, I find the discussion for and against using the Multi Valued Fields incredibly frustrating.
I'm trying to sort through it all, but if everyone is so against them, what is an alternative method? It seems that in every search result I find everyone is either telling you how to use Multi Valued Fields and Controls or telling you how horrible and what a mistake they are. Many people refer to an alternative to them, but nobody says "Here's an example". I'm here to learn about these things. And while I know that this is a simpler concept for a lot of people in these forums, I could really use some examples to take a look at.
I'm at a point where I have to decide which way to go. It would be wonderful to compare examples of using Multi Valued Fields and alternatives and using a control to select multiple values.
Or am I wrong and the functionality of a combobox where you can select multiple items is only available through Access?
I want to address the last of your questions first. There is a way of providing a visual presentation of a parent child relationship. It's called subforms. If you get help about subforms in Access, it will explain the concept.
I have used subforms in a project where I wanted to display the transaction header in a form and the transaction details in a subform. There is nothing to hinder this construct even when the data is stored in two normalized tables.
Of course, this affects the screen, not the database. That's the whole point. Normalization is relevant to storage and retrieval, not to other uses of data.
Related
I started a new application and now I am looking at two paths and don't know which is good way to continue.
I am building something like eCommerce site. I have a categories and subcategories.
The problem is that there are different type of products on site and each has different properties. And site must be filterable by those product properties.
This is my initial database design:
Products{ProductId, Name, ProductCategoryId}
ProductCategories{ProductCategoryId, Name, ParentId}
CategoryProperties{CategoryPropertyId, ProductCategoryId, Name}
ProductPropertyValues{ProductId, CategoryPropertyId, Value}
Now after some analysis I see that this design is actually EAV model and I read that people usually don't recommend this design.
It seems that dynamic sql queries are required for everything.
That's one way and I am looking at it right now.
Another way that I see is probably named a LOT WORK WAY but if it's better I want to go there.
To make table
Product{ProductId, CategoryId, Name, ManufacturerId}
and to make table inheritance in database wich means to make tables like
Cpus{ProductId ....}
HardDisks{ProductId ....}
MotherBoards{ProductId ....}
erc. for each product (1 to 1 relation).
I understand that this will be a very large database and very large application domain but is it better, easier and performance better than the option one with EAV design.
EAV is rarely a win. In your case I can see the appeal of EAV given that different categories will have different attributes and this will be hard to manage otherwise. However, suppose someone wants to search for "all hard drives with more than 3 platters, using a SATA interface, spinning at 10k rpm?" Your query in EAV will be painful. If you ever want to support a query like that, EAV is out.
There are other approaches however. You could consider an XML field with extended data or, if you are on PostgreSQL 9.2, a JSON field (XML is easier to search though). This would give you a significantly larger range of possible searches without the headaches of EAV. The tradeoff would be that schema enforcement would be harder.
This questions seems to discuss the issue in greater detail.
Apart from performance, extensibility and complexity discussed there, also take into account:
SQL databases such as SQL Server have full-text search features; so if you have a single field describing the product - full text search will index it and will be able to provide advanced semantic searches
take a look at no-sql systems that are all the rage right now; scalability should be quite good with them and they provide support for non-structured data such as the one you have. Hadoop and Casandra are good starting points.
You could very well work with the EAV model.
We do something similar with a Logistics application. It is built on .net though.
Apart from the tables, your application code has to handle the objects correctly.
See if you can add generic table for each object. It works for us.
After my first try to misappropriate Ms-Access - with your help - turned out to be a great success, I have been sent back to do "more of this".
A bit of introduction you can skip if you want:
I am building a data foundation about certain projects from which I want to create analysises and overviews.
The data and findings are to be represented in programs like Excel or Powerpoint, so the process itself is very open. It will probably be very visual with detailed points on request.
However, the data might be changing periodically and if this turns out well, I might repeat the process.
Therefore I think the ideal way would be to have a data layer, then a fixed set of queries on that data and then I would (semi-)manually compile the results into a report in whatever format fits, maybe using external data analysis tools such as R in between.
Trouble is, the only database I have access to is.. well.. Ms Access 2010. I am not at liberty to install anything on this machine.
I could of course use non-install or online tools if you have recommendations for this.
tl;dr: I want to use Ms Access to query data from a relational db into tabular format to be processed further by hand, using as little of Ms-Access VBA and forms as possible.
I have since started to implement a prototype in ms-Access, a standard relational database.
One interesting problem I have come up with with this kind of design is that I have a table for companies involved in the projects. Along with this, I have a table of "relationship" - like stakeholding, ownerships or cooperations.
So let's say company A is building project A, but is just a subsidary of company B, which then partly owned by company C and so on.
Now let's say I want to query all companies involved in a project, but as owners I just want to show the last "elements" of the chain.
Imagine I want to sort the list by net assets, which is usually a figure which is only available for the public companies at the end of the chain, not the project subsidaries up the chain etc.
Is this possible with (Ms-)SQL or would I need to do this in VBA?
Right now I think I could manage do write a VBA function and dump it into a temporary table, but then I'd have to create forms and such.
Another idea that immediately springs from this is ´to answer the question "In which project does company C have stake" by a query. You can see where this is going.
I would prefer the database and the queries to be as flexible as possible (and in this case, independend from the actual Access).
So this time, no mock-program or user-interface. It was a pain to get what I want from Access in the last project and that was with a very specific question set...
But in general I am also open to use different tools if I can.
Thank you so much!
Modelling hierarchies in an RDBMS is a fairly tricky process - some (like Oracle) have built-in functionality to query hierarchical data, but I don't think Access does.
The best solution is to use a "nested set" model. This allows you to model hierarchical data while using standard SQL; it's also pretty fast for querying.
If your data isn't hierarchical, the nested set isn't so useful; the typical solution in that case is to introduce a table to map the relationship - typically including the two related entities, and often with a "relationship type" field (e.g. "parent", "part owner" etc.). This is often called a Directed Acyclical Graph or DAG. There are several ways of modelling these in a database; a "Closure table" is probably the most efficient. This article shows how to do this - it's a heavy read, but I think it answers your question.
I'm designing a contact manager/address book-like application but can't settle on the database design.
In my current setup I have a Contact, which has Addresses, Phonenumbers, Emails, and Organizations. All contact properties are currently separate tables with a fk to the Contact table. Needless to say a contact can have any number of these properties.
Now, I find myself joining all these tables together if I want to read contacts into the app. Since no filters, reverse lookups, sorts etc. are performed on the related tables, isn't it a better/simpler solution to just store the related fields as json-encoded lists on direct properties of the Contact table?
E.g., instead of a Contact with a fk to a phonenumber table with 3 entries, just encode all phonenumbers and store them into a field of the Contact table?
Any insights really appreciated! (fyi I'm using Django although that doesn't really matter)
Can you guarantee that your app will never grow to need these other functionalities? Do you really want to paint yourself into the corner such that you can't easily support all of this later?
Generally, denormalization happens only for preformance reasons. And then, a copy of the normalized data is still kept for live work and the denormalized data is used for offline processing where having a static snapshot is fine.
Get used to writing joins. That's the way SQL works. Having to do so doesn't meant something is wrong.
I know I'm too late, but for anyone with the same issue.
IMO, in this case metadata modeling is the way to go.
http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com/feature/Data-model-patterns-A-metadata-map
Sounds like you propose taking data currently modelled as five SQL tables and converting it to a common multi-valued type (does your SQL product have good support for this?) The only way I can see this would constitute 'denormalization' would be if you were proposing to violate 1NF, at which point you may as well abandon SQL as a data store because your data would no longer be relational! Otherwise, your data would still be normalized but you will have lost the ability to query its attributes using SQL (unless your SQL product has extensions for querying multi-value attributes). The deciding factor seems to be: do you need to query these attributes using SQL?
So I have an interesting problem that's been the fruit of lots of good discussion in my group at work.
We have some scientific software producing SQLlite files, and this software is basically a black box. We don't control its table designs, formats, etc. It's entirely conceivable that this black box's output could change, and our design needs to be able to handle that.
The SQLlite files are entire databases which our user would like to query across. There are two ways (we see) of implementing this, one, to create a single database and a backend in Python that appends tables from each database to the master database, and two, querying across separate databases' tables and unifying the results in Python.
Both methods run into trouble when the black box produces alters its table structures, say for example renaming a column, splitting up a table, etc. We have to take this into account, and we've discussed translation tables that translate queries of columns from one table format to another.
We're interested in ease of implementation, how well the design handles a change in database/table layout, and speed. Also, a last dimension is how well it would work with existing Python web frameworks (Django doesn't support cross-database queries, and neither does SQLAlchemy, so we know we are in for a lot of programming.)
If you find yourself querying across databases, you should look into consolidating. Cross-database queries are evil.
If your queries are essentially relegated to individual databases, then you may want to stick with multiple databases, as clearly their separation is necessary.
You cannot accommodate arbitrary changes in a database's schema without categorizing and anticipating that change in some way. In the very best case with nontrivial changes, you can sometimes simply ignore new data or tables, in the worst case, your interpretation of the data will entirely break down.
I've encountered similar issues where users need data pivoted out of a normalized schema. The schema does NOT change. However, their required output format requires a fixed number of hierarchical levels. Thus, although the database design accommodates all the changes they want to make, their chosen view of that data cannot be maintained in the face of their changes. Thus it is impossible to maintain the output schema in the face of data change (not even schema change). This is not to say that it's not a valid output or input schema, but that there are limits beyond which their chosen schema cannot be used. At this point, they have to revise the output contract, the pivoting program (which CAN anticipate this and generate new columns) can then have a place to put the data in the output schema.
My point being: the semantics and interpretation of new columns and new tables (or removal of columns and tables which existing logic may depend on) is nontrivial unless new columns or tables can be anticipated in some way. However, in these cases, there are usually good database designs which eliminate those strategies in the first place:
For instance, a particular database schema can contain any number of tables, all with the same structure (although there is no theoretical reason they could not be consolidated into a single table). A particular kind of table could have a set of columns all similarly named (although this "array" violates normalization principles and could be normalized into a commonkey/code/value schema).
Even in a data warehouse ETL situation, a new column is going to have to be determined whether it is a fact or a dimensional attribute, and then if it is a dimensional attribute, which dimension table it is best assigned to. This could somewhat be automated for facts (obvious candidates would be scalars like decimal/numeric) by inspecting the metadata for unmapped columns, altering the DW table (yikes) and then loading appropriately. But for dimensions, I would be very leery of automating somethings like this.
So, in summary, I would say that schema changes in a good normalized database design are the least likely to be able to be accommodated because: 1) the database design already anticipates and accommodates a good deal of change and flexibility and 2) schema changes to such a database design are unlikely to be able to be anticipated very easily. Conversely, schema changes in a poorly normalized database design are actually more easy to anticipate as shortcomings in the database design are more visible.
So, my question to you is: How well-designed is the database you are working from?
You say that you know that you are in for a lot of programming...
I'm not sure about that. I would go for a quick and dirty solution not a 'generic' solution because generic solutions like the entity attribute value model often have a bad performance. Don't do client side joining (unifying the results) inside your Python code because that is very slow. Use SQL for joining, it is designed for that purpose. Users can also make their own reports with all kind of reporting tools that generate sql statements. You don't have to do everything in your app, just start with solving 80% of the problems, not 100%.
If something breaks because something inside the black box changes you can define views for backward compatibility that keeps your app functioning.
Maybe the scientific software will add a lot of new features and maybe it will change its datamodel because of those new features..? That is possible but then you will have to change your application anyways to take profit from those new features.
It sounds to me as if your problem isn't really about MySQL or SQLlite. It's about the sharing of data, and the contract that needs to exist between the supplier of data and the user of the same data.
To the extent that databases exist so that data can be shared, that contract is fundamental to everything about databases. When databases were first being built, and database theory was first being solidified, in the 1960s and 1970s, the sharing of data was the central purpose in building databases. Today, databases are frequently used where files would have served equally well. Your situation may be a case in point.
In your situation, you have a beggar's contract with your data suppliers. They can change the format of the data, and maybe even the semantics, and all you can do is suck it up and deal wth it. This situation is by no means uncommon.
I don't know the specifics of your situation, so what follows could be way off target.
If it was up to me, I would want to build a database that was as generic, as flexible, and as stable as possible, without losing the essential features of structured and managed data. Maybe, some design like star schema would make sense, but I might adopt a very different design if I were actually in your shoes.
This leaves the problem of extracting the data from the databases you are given, transforming the data into the stable format the central database supports, and loading it into the central database. You are right in guessing that this involves a lot of programming. This process, known as "ETL" in data warehousing texts, is not the simplest of programming challenges.
At least ETL collects all the hard problems in one place. Once you have the data loaded into a database that's built for your needs, and not for the needs of your suppliers, turning the data into valuable information should be relatively easy, at least at the programming or SQL level. There are even OLAP tools that make using the data as simple as a video game. There are challenges at that level, but they aren't the same kind of challenges I'm talking about here.
Read up on data warehousing, and especially data marts. The description may seem daunting to you at first, but it can be scaled down to meet your needs.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
This post was edited and submitted for review 12 months ago and failed to reopen the post:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
(Note: I realize this is close to How do you document your database structure? , but I don't think it's identical.)
I've started work at a place with a database with literally hundreds of tables and views, all with cryptic names with very few vowels, and no documentation. They also don't allow gratuitous changes to the database schema, nor can I touch any database except the test one on my own machine (which gets blown away and recreated regularly), so I can't add comments that would help anybody.
I tried using "Toad" to create an ER diagram, but after leaving it running for 48 hours straight it still hadn't produced anything visible and I needed my computer back. I was talking to some other recent hires and we all suggested that whenever we've puzzled out what a particular table or what some of its columns means, we should update it in the developers wiki.
So what's a good way to do this? Just list tables/views and their columns and fill them in as we go? The basic tools I've got to hand are Toad, Oracle's "SQL Developer", MS Office, and Visio.
In my experience, ER (or UML) diagrams aren't the most useful artifact - with a large number of tables, diagrams (especially reverse engineered ones) are often a big convoluted mess that nobody learns anything from.
For my money, some good human-readable documentation (perhaps supplemented with diagrams of smaller portions of the system) will give you the most mileage. This will include, for each table:
Descriptions of what the table means and how it's functionally used (in the UI, etc.)
Descriptions of what each attribute means, if it isn't obvious
Explanations of the relationships (foreign keys) from this table to others, and vice-versa
Explanations of additional constraints and / or triggers
Additional explanation of major views & procs that touch the table, if they're not well documented already
With all of the above, don't document for the sake of documenting - documentation that restates the obvious just gets in people's way. Instead, focus on the stuff that confused you at first, and spend a few minutes writing really clear, concise explanations. That'll help you think it through, and it'll massively help other developers who run into these tables for the first time.
As others have mentioned, there are a wide variety of tools to help you manage this, like Enterprise Architect, Red Gate SQL Doc, and the built-in tools from various vendors. But while tool support is helpful (and even critical, in bigger databases), doing the hard work of understanding and explaining the conceptual model of the database is the real win. From that perspective, you can even do it in a text file (though doing it in Wiki form would allow several people to collaborate on adding to that documentation incrementally - so, every time someone figures out something, they can add it to the growing body of documentation instantly).
One thing to consider is the COMMENT facility built into the DBMS. If you put comments on all of the tables and all of the columns in the DBMS itself, then your documentation will be inside the database system.
Using the COMMENT facility does not make any changes to the schema itself, it only adds data to the USER_TAB_COMMENTS catalog table.
In our team we came to useful approach to documenting legacy large Oracle and SQL Server databases. We use Dataedo for documenting database schema elements (data dictionary) and creating ERD diagrams. Dataedo comes with documentation repository so all your team can work on documenting and reading recent documentation online. And you don’t need to interfere with database (Oracle comments or SQL Server MS_Description).
First you import schema (all tables, views, stored procedures and functions – with triggers, foreign keys etc.). Then you define logical domains/modules and group all objects (drag & drop) into them to be able to analyze and work on smaller chunks of database. For each module you create an ERD diagram and write top level description. Then, as you discover meaning of tables and views write a short description for each. Do the same for each column. Dataedo enables you to add meaningful title for each object and column – it’s useful if object names are vague or invalid. Pro version enables you to describe foreign keys, unique keys/constraints and triggers – which is useful but not essential to understand a database.
You can access documentation through UI or you can export it to PDF or interactive HTML (the latter is available only in Pro version).
Described here is a continuous process rather than one time job. If your database changes (eg. new columns, views) you should sync your documentation on regular basis (couple clicks with Dataedo).
See sample documentation:
http://dataedo.com/download/Dataedo%20repository.pdf
Some guidelines on documentation process:
Diagrams:
Keep your diagrams small and readable – just include important tables, relations and columns – only the one that have any meaning to understand big picture – primary/business keys, important attributes and relations,
Use different color for key tables in a diagram,
You can have more than one diagram per module,
You can add diagram to description of most important tables/with most relations.
Descriptions:
Don’t document the obvious – don’t write description “Document date” for document.date column. If there’s nothing meaningful to add just leave it blank,
If objects stored in tables have types or statuses it’s good to list them in general description of a table,
Define format that is expected, eg. “mm/dd/yy” for a date that is stored in text field,
List all known/important values an it’s meaning, e.g. for status column could be something like this: “Document status: A – Active, C – Cancelled, D – Deleted”,
If there’s any API to a table – a view that should be used to read data and function/procedures to insert/update data – list it in the description of table,
Describe where does rows/columns’ values come from (procedure, form, interface etc.) ,
Use “[deprecated]” mark (or similar) for columns that should not be used (title column is useful for this, explain which field should be used instead in description field).
We use Enterprise Architect for our DB definitions. We include stored procedures, triggers, and all table definitions defined in UML. The three brilliant features of the program are:
Import UML Diagrams from an ODBC Connection.
Generate SQL Scripts (DDL) for the entire DB at once
Generate Custom Templated Documentation of your DB.
You can edit your class / table definitions within the UML tool, and generate a fully descriptive with pictures included document. The autogenerated document can be in multiple formats including MSWord. We have just less than 100 tables in our schema, and it's quite managable.
I've never been more impressed with any other tool in my 10+ years as a developer. EA supports Oracle, MySQL, SQL Server (multiple versions), PostGreSQL, Interbase, DB2, and Access in one fell swoop. Any time I've had problems, their forums have answered my problems promptly. Highly recommended!!
When DB changes come in, we make then in EA, generate the SQL, and check it into our version control (svn). We use Hudson for building, and it auto-builds the database from scripts when it sees you've modified the checked-in sql.
(Mostly stolen from another answer of mine)
This answer extends Kieveli's above, which I upvoted. If your version of EA supports Object Role Modeling (conceptual design, vs. logical design = ERD), reverse engineer to that and then fill out the model with the expressive richness it gives you.
The cheap and lighter-weight option is to download Visiomodeler for free from MS, and do the same with that.
The ORM (call it ORMDB) is the only tool I've ever found that supports and encourages database design conversations with non-IS stakeholders about BL objects and relationships.
Reality check - on the way to generating your DDL, it passes through a full-stop ERD phase where you can satisfy your questions about whether it does anything screwy. It doesn't. It will probably show you weaknesses in the ERD you designed yourself.
ORMDB is a classic case of the principle that the more conceptual the tool, the smaller the market. Girls just want to have fun, and programmers just want to code.
A wiki solution supports hyperlinks and collaborative editing, but a wiki is only as good as the people who keep it organized and up to date. You need someone to take ownership of the document project, regardless of what tool you use. That person may involve other knowledgeable people to fill in the details, but one person should be responsible for organizing the information.
If you can't use a tool to generate an ERD by reverse engineering, you'll have to design one by hand using TOAD or VISIO.
Any ERD with hundreds of objects is probably useless as a guide for developers, because it'll be unreadable with so many boxes and lines. In a database with so many objects, it's likely that there are "sub-systems" of a few dozen tables and views each. So you should make custom diagrams of these sub-systems, instead of expecting a tool to do it for you.
You can also design a pseudo-ERD, where groups of tables are represented by a single object in one diagram, and that group is expanded in another diagram.
A single ERD or set of ERD's are not sufficient to document a system of this complexity, any more than a class diagram would be adequate to document an OO system. You'll have to write a document, using the ERD's as illustrations. You need text descriptions of the meaning and use of each table, each column, and the relationships between tables (especially where such relationships are implicit instead of represented by referential integrity constraints).
All of this is a lot of work, but it will be worth it. If there's a clear and up-to-date place where the schema is documented, the whole team will benefit from it.
Since you have the luxury of working with fellow developers that are in the same boat, I would suggest asking them what they feel would convey the needed information, most easily. My company has over 100 tables, and my boss gave me an ERD for a specific set tables that all connect. So also, you might want to try breaking 1 massive ERD into a bunch of smaller, manageable, ERDs.
Well, a picture tells a thousand words so I would recommend creating ER diagrams where you can view the relationship between tables at a glance, something that is hard to do with a text-only description.
You don't have to do the whole database in one diagram, break it up into sections. We use Visual Paradigm at work but EA is a good alternative as is ERWIN, and no doubt there are lots of others that are just as good.
If you have the patience, then using html to document the tables and columns makes your documentation easier to access.
If describing your databases to your end users is your primary goal Ooluk Data Dictionary Manager can prove useful. It is a web-based multi-user software that allows you to attach descriptions to tables and columns and allows full text searches on those descriptions. It also allows you to logically group tables using labels and browse tables using those labels. Tables as well as columns can be tagged to find similar data items across your database/databases.
The software allows you to import metadata information such as table name, column name, column data type, foreign keys into its internal repository using an API. Support for JDBC data sources comes built-in and can be extended further as the API source is distributed under ASL 2.0. It is coded to read the COMMENTS/REMARKS from many RDBMSs.You can always manually override the imported information. The information you can store about tables and columns can be extended using custom fields.
The Data Dictionary Manager uses the "data object" and "attribute" terminology instead of table and column because it isn't designed specifically for relational databases.
Notes
If describing technical aspects of your database such as triggers,
indexes, statistics is important this software isn't the best option.
It is however possible to combine a technical solution with this
software using hyperlink custom fields.
The software doesn't produce an ERD
Disclosure: I work at the company that develops this product.