I want to stack items in users their inventory.
If you have a new weapon with the same ItemID, it just creates a new row like in the picture below.
If the ItemID exists then it needs to change the quantity to the number of weapons you've actually got, and delete the duplicate rows.
What type of query is that, or help me on the way?
There are various problems in your table design. First, I do not understand the purpose of InventoryID here. Because the InventoryID is unique (which I would assume to be the primary key, that's why every time when you have an additional itemID (same or not), it will be treated as a new row.
I do not know what you're trying to achieve in the end, but,
Option 1: Create a separate table Inventory with InventoryID and probably ItemID and LeasedUntil, then modify your current table to only CustomerID and ItemID and quantity
Option 2: keep your current table, add another table called Item that has only ItemID and Quantity
You may also want to review table Normalization here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283878
Your current table is in 1NF
I am having a bit of trouble when modelling a relational database to an inventory managament system. For now, it only has 3 simple tables:
Product
ID | Name | Price
Receivings
ID | Date | Quantity | Product_ID (FK)
Sales
ID | Date | Quantity | Product_ID (FK)
As Receivings and Sales are identical, I was considering a different approach:
Product
ID | Name | Price
Receivings_Sales (the name doesn't matter)
ID | Date | Quantity | Type | Product_ID (FK)
The column type would identify if it was receiving or sale.
Can anyone help me choose the best option, pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of either approach?
The first one seems reasonable because I am thinking in a ORM way.
Thanks!
Personally I prefer the first option, that is, separate tables for Sales and Receiving.
The two biggest disadvantage in option number 2 or merging two tables into one are:
1) Inflexibility
2) Unnecessary filtering when use
First on inflexibility. If your requirements expanded (or you just simply overlooked it) then you will have to break up your schema or you will end up with unnormalized tables. For example let's say your sales would now include the Sales Clerk/Person that did the sales transaction so obviously it has nothing to do with 'Receiving'. And what if you do Retail or Wholesale sales how would you accommodate that in your merged tables? How about discounts or promos? Now, I am identifying the obvious here. Now, let's go to Receiving. What if we want to tie up our receiving to our Purchase Order? Obviously, purchase order details like P.O. Number, P.O. Date, Supplier Name etc would not be under Sales but obviously related more to Receiving.
Secondly, on unnecessary filtering when use. If you have merged tables and you want only to use the Sales (or Receving) portion of the table then you have to filter out the Receiving portion either by your back-end or your front-end program. Whereas if it a separate table you have just to deal with one table at a time.
Additionally, you mentioned ORM, the first option would best fit to that endeavour because obviously an object or entity for that matter should be distinct from other entity/object.
If the tables really are and always will be identical (and I have my doubts), then name the unified table something more generic, like "InventoryTransaction", and then use negative numbers for one of the transaction types: probably sales, since that would correctly mark your inventory in terms of keeping track of stock on hand.
The fact that headings are the same is irrelevant. Seeking to use a single table because headings are the same is misconceived.
-- person [source] loves person [target]
LOVES(source,target)
-- person [source] hates person [target]
HATES(source,target)
Every base table has a corresponding predicate aka fill-in-the-[named-]blanks statement describing the application situation. A base table holds the rows that make a true statement.
Every query expression combines base table names via JOIN, UNION, SELECT, EXCEPT, WHERE condition, etc and has a corresponding predicate that combines base table predicates via (respectively) AND, OR, EXISTS, AND NOT, AND condition, etc. A query result holds the rows that make a true statement.
Such a set of predicate-satisfying rows is a relation. There is no other reason to put rows in a table.
(The other answers here address, as they must, proposals for and consequences of the predicate that your one table could have. But if you didn't propose the table because of its predicate, why did you propose it at all? The answer is, since not for the predicate, for no good reason.)
I'm not good at normalization databases and I have scenario that get me confused.
We need a database for a storage software with some usual abilities like:
storing customers and goods
storing purchase invoice
storing sales Invoice
get us current amount of goods in stock.
well I have 2 options in my mind:
1. First Solution
We have 4 tables like this:
goods:
ID: PK; ->unique id for each of wares
Name ; ->this is clear enough ;)
customers:
ID: PK;
Name;
invoices:
ID: PK;
ID_Customer: FK;
Date;
invoices_items:
ID_Invoice: FK;
ID_Ware: FK;
Qty: quantity of ware that was bought or sold. for buying number is positive and selling number is negative
2. Second Solution
We have 3 tables like this:
goods and customers are like the first
invoices:
ID: its not PK;
ID_Customer: FK;
ID_goods: FK;
Date;
Qty
actually the difference between first one and second is in Invoices.
So my questions is clear:
Which one is better?
If there is third one that is better than my solutions please advice me.
Please tell me some ways that help me improve my power of normalization.
At last sorry for my bad English ;)
You should definitely go for the first... with both invoices and invoices_items. It is more normalized. The invoice date and other invoice data you may want to add in the future (number, status, date_delivered or other such stuff) should reside in its own table.
If you opt for the second solution you will have complex maintenance issues. If you want to change the invoice date, you will have to do so on all invoices_items rows. And you will never be sure you just have one single date on all rows. If data can go wrong... it will. To avoid this try to have all the data in the correct table, where it resides logically. Do not repeat it on multiple rows, just to save yourself the creation of one table.
Your first solution is better. In your second solution, you're effectively duplicating the date and customer for each item in your invoice, which is both more prone to error (What if the dates are different on items with the same ID?) and less storage-efficient.
Preface:
I was thinking the other day about a new database structure for a new application and realized that we needed a way to store historical data in an efficient way. I was wanting someone else to take a look and see if there are any problems with this structure. I realize that this method of storing data may very well have been invented before (I am almost certain it has) but I have no idea if it has a name and some google searches that I tried didn't yield anything.
Problem:
Lets say you have a table for orders, and orders are related to a customer table for the customer that placed the order. In a normal database structure you might expect something like this:
orders
------
orderID
customerID
customers
---------
customerID
address
address2
city
state
zip
Pretty straightforward, orderID has a foreign key of customerID which is the primary key of the customer table. But if we were to go and run a report over the order table, we are going to join the customers table to the orders table, which will bring back the current record for that customer ID. What if when the order was placed, the customers address was different and it has been subsequently changed. Now our order no longer reflects the history of that customers address, at the time the order was placed. Basically, by changing the customer record, we just changed all history for that customer.
Now there are several ways around this, one of which would be to copy the record when an order was created. What I have come up with though is what I think would be an easier way to do this that is perhaps a little more elegant, and has the added bonus of logging anytime a change is made.
What if I did a structure like this instead:
orders
------
orderID
customerID
customerHistoryID
customers
---------
customerID
customerHistoryID
customerHistory
--------
customerHistoryID
customerID
address
address2
city
state
zip
updatedBy
updatedOn
please forgive the formatting, but I think you can see the idea. Basically, the idea is that anytime a customer is changed, insert or update, the customerHistoryID is incremented and the customers table is updated with the latest customerHistoryID. The order table now not only points to the customerID (which allows you to see all revisions of the customer record), but also to the customerHistoryID, which points to a specific revision of the record. Now the order reflects the state of data at the time the order was created.
By adding an updatedby and updatedon column to the customerHistory table, you can also see an "audit log" of the data, so you could see who made the changes and when.
One potential downside could be deletes, but I am not really worried about that for this need as nothing should ever be deleted. But even still, the same effect could be achieved by using an activeFlag or something like it depending on the domain of the data.
My thought is that all tables would use this structure. Anytime historical data is being retrieved, it would be joined against the history table using the customerHistoryID to show the state of data for that particular order.
Retrieving a list of customers is easy, it just takes a join to the customer table on the customerHistoryID.
Can anyone see any problems with this approach, either from a design standpoint, or performance reasons why this is bad. Remember, no matter what I do I need to make sure that the historical data is preserved so that subsequent updates to records do not change history. Is there a better way? Is this a known idea that has a name, or any documentation on it?
Thanks for any help.
Update:
This is a very simple example of what I am really going to have. My real application will have "orders" with several foreign keys to other tables. Origin/destination location information, customer information, facility information, user information, etc. It has been suggested a couple of times that I could copy the information into the order record at that point, and I have seen it done this way many times, but this would result in a record with hundreds of columns, which really isn't feasible in this case.
When I've encountered such problems one alternative is to make the order the history table. Its functions the same but its a little easier to follow
orders
------
orderID
customerID
address
City
state
zip
customers
---------
customerID
address
City
state
zip
EDIT: if the number of columns gets to high for your liking you can separate it out however you like.
If you do go with the other option and using history tables you should consider using bitemporal data since you may have to deal with the possibility that historical data needs to be corrected. For example Customer Changed his current address From A to B but you also have to correct address on an existing order that is currently be fulfilled.
Also if you are using MS SQL Server you might want to consider using indexed views. That will allow you to trade a small incremental insert/update perf decrease for a large select perf increase. If you're not using MS SQL server you can replicate this using triggers and tables.
When you are designing your data structures, be very carful to store the correct relationships, not something that is similar to the correct relationships. If the address for an order needs to be maintained, then that is because the address is part of the order, not the customer. Also, unit prices are part of the order, not the product, etc.
Try an arrangement like this:
Customer
--------
CustomerId (PK)
Name
AddressId (FK)
PhoneNumber
Email
Order
-----
OrderId (PK)
CustomerId (FK)
ShippingAddressId (FK)
BillingAddressId (FK)
TotalAmount
Address
-------
AddressId (PK)
AddressLine1
AddressLine2
City
Region
Country
PostalCode
OrderLineItem
-------------
OrderId (PK) (FK)
OrderItemSequence (PK)
ProductId (FK)
UnitPrice
Quantity
Product
-------
ProductId (PK)
Price
etc.
If you truly need to store history for something, like tracking changes to an order over time, then you should do that with a log or audit table, not with your transaction tables.
Normally orders simply store the information as it is at the time of the order. This is especially true of things like part numbers, part names and prices as well as customer address and name. Then you don;t have to join to 5 or six tables to get teh information that can be stored in one. This is not denormalization as you actually need to have the innformation as it existed at the time of the order. I think is is less likely that having this information in the order and order detail (stores the individual items ordered) tables is less risky in terms of accidental change to the data as well.
Your order table would not have hundreds of columns. You would have an order table and an order detail table due to one to many relationships. Order table would include order no. customer id 9so you can search for everything this customer has ever ordered even if the name changed), customer name, customer address (note you don't need city state zip etc, put the address in one field), order date and possibly a few other fields that relate directly to the order at a top level. Then you have an order detail table that has order number, detail_id, part number, part description (this can be a consolidation of a bunch of fields like size, color etc. or you can separate out the most common), No of items, unit type, price per unit, taxes, total price, ship date, status. You put one entry in for each item ordered.
If you are genuinely interested in such problems, I can only suggest you take a serious look at "Temporal Data and the Relational Model".
Warning1 : there is no SQL in there and almost anything you think you know about the relational model will be claimed a falsehood. With good reason.
Warning2 : you are expected to think, and think hard.
Warning3 : the book is about what the solution for this particular family of problems ought to look like, but as the introduction says, it is not about any technology available today.
That said, the book is genuine enlightenment. At the very least, it helps to make it clear that the solution for such problems will not be found in SQl as it stands today, or in ORMs as those stand today, for that matter.
What you want is called a datawarehouse. Since datawarehouses are OLAP and not OLTP, it is recommended to have as many columns as you need in order to achieve your goals. In your case the orders table in the datawarehouse will have 11 fields as having a 'snapshot' of orders as they come, regardless of users accounts updates.
Wiley -The Data Warehouse Toolkit, Second Edition
It's a good start.
Our payroll system uses effective dates in many tables. The ADDRESSES table is keyed on EMPLID and EFFDT. This allows us to track every time an employee's address changes. You could use the same logic to track historical addresses for customers. Your queries would simply need to include a clause that compares the order date to the customer address date that was in effect at the time of the order. For example
select o.orderID, c.customerID, c.address, c.city, c.state, c.zip
from orders o, customers c
where c.customerID = o.customerID
and c.effdt = (
select max(c1.effdt) from customers c1
where c1.customerID = c.customerID and c1.effdt <= o.orderdt
)
The objective is to select the most recent row in customers having an effective date that is on or before the date of the order. This same strategy could be used to keep historical information on product prices.
I myself like to keep it simple. I would use two tables: a customer table and a customer history table. If you have the key (e.g. CustomerID) in the history table there is no reason to make a joining table, a select on that key will give you all records.
You also don't have audit information (e.g. date modified, who modified etc) in the history table as you show it, I expect you want this.
So mine would look something like this:
CustomerTable (this contains current customer information)
CustomerID (distinct non null)
...all customer information fields
CustomerHistoryTable
CustomerID (not distinct non null)
...all customer information fields
DateOfChange
WhoChanged
The DateOfChange field is the date the customer table was changed (from the values in this record) to the values in a more recent record of the values in the CustomerTable.
You orders table just needs a CustomerID if you need to find the customer information at the time of the order it is a simple select.
So I am a first time user here, and still relatively new to SQL. I am attempting to take 2 tables, and join them in a sense.
In Table1 I have the data:
House_Key ---Other Fields--- Customer_ID
House_Key is not unique, and as such I can have multiple Customer_IDs per household. House_Key is a numerical code, and Customer_ID is either Home, Business, or Bulk.
In Table2 I have the House_Key field, but not the Customer_ID field.
My goal is to have a new table that holds the fields of Table2 with a field called Customer_ID, but instead of having a new row for each type of Customer_ID like in Table 1, I want to have each House_Key only have one row, and the Customer_ID say something like "Home Business Bulk" if it is all three or any combination of them, but would prefer that it always have Home before Business before Bulk in the field.
Is there any way to do this? Thank you very much ahead of time.
Also, not sure if it matters, but in case it does I'm using SQL Server 2005.
Wow, I'm glad that you came here for an answer, but seems that you really need some reading about relational databases.
Instead of writing looong answer here're the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join_(SQL)