Related
I'm going to use Drupal as my example, but it extends to other situations as well.
I've seen database schema that are abstracted away from what a DBA would implement, most notably with Drupal. For example, When you create a Content Type in Drupal (equivalent of table), it abstracts away the fields, as new tables, in the form of field_{machineName}, which then relates back to the original "parent" table (node_type in drupal).
When I'm dealing with MVC frameworks, like Rails, Django, or Laravel, we don't abstract away the tables, so fields are stored right on the table itself, not related back.
What benefits do you get from implementing an abstracted table rather than a concrete table? Are there situations that this should be used, or is it generally a bad idea? It seems like a bad design choice to me, but I'm a fairly isolated programmer.
A feeble attempt to illustrate my question, using a "Book" example.
EDIT
I see that my diagram isn't exactly accurate. I will post a new one that reflects that node_id should relate to a node table, which then stores a reference to node_type
My 2 cents:
Pros of abstraction :
Can handle any entity type the same exact way.
you can define "Generic UI" & plugin system based on node type
You can define Generic behaviours (like ACL based on node field title) applicable to any model built.
Cons of abstraction:
You cannot see the "final" model directly (however, you may rebuild an image of it)
performance & querying complexity (can be mitigated with "flat" indexation tables)
So i would say :
for "open datamodel" , able to suit any need of data representation , abstraction has many advantages (at the cost of readability & performance). That's the typical case of many "multipurpose meta builders" (like Drupal)
If you know what you are modelizing and are defining an "application" rather than an "application factory" , you'd better use a "specific" datamodel for the application scope.
Another "meta" database construction pattern i like to use is :
Defining entity specific tables with associated "generic" table. (typed base table & open "key/value" property table associated with each entry of the base entity table). So it gives the ability to add "extra info" to existing base entity without having to modify the core model at each iteration. Letting the choice to find out what "properties" to migrate in the base table over time.
Another variant of this is EAV model , used for example in Magento.
IMHO, here are the 2 main reasons why the Drupal schema is build this way
Fields are dynamic, they cab be added and removed from a an entity bundle at any time fron the Web UI. Using separated table ease mutation of the schema.
Field values can be translated, in Drupal 7 the translations is a done at the field level. The title field could be translatable, while the content field may be not.
Note that most of the times, when using the Drupal APIs, you don't have to deal with these tables.
I have a schema with a number of many to many relationships and what I'm seeing is a alot of similar data structure spread out among tables with different names. The intuition I have is that there is a more efficient/desirable way to achieve the same result but I'm not sure what alternative approaches fall into reasonable design/best practices.
Note: Counries, TrafficTypes and People - as they exist now - could all be represented by Id and Name columns, but in the future may have additional fields. Maybe what I'm after is some kind of technique akin to inheritance?
Here's the diagram of what I've got:
Don't lump together things which you think are similar; they may diverge later when you need to store more information about each entity.
Is there a problem with the number of tables you have in your database?
You are probably thinking about the problem from an object oriented design position and thinking you can use some sort of "parent" table to represent the common parts - databases don't work that way.
If you are not careful you will end up with a MUCK or OTLT table.
Off the bat, I would keep seperate enties/objects/(cars vs animals) in seperate tables.
The chances of such enties overlapping properties are slim at best.
Thing is, once those entites start to evolve in your system, you will find that a single table will have hundreds of columns with singles populated per entity.
I don't see how inheritance applies to your case. But if you are interested in inheritance, as it applies to SQL tables or relations, here are some things to look up:
At the level of ER modeling look up "ER model specialization". This is the way the extended ER model diagrams "is A" relationships.
At the level of table design, look up "Class Table Inheritance" and "Shared primary key" for a couple of techniques that, used together, sort of mimic what inheritance does for you in an OOP. You might also want to look up "single table inheritance" for an alternative that's simpler, but can be more wasteful.
Don't worry. You're doing it right.
In a highly normalized schema, you're going to have tons of tables that are nearly identical.
As the others have said, what you're starting to consider (a generic table for multiple things) is a very bad idea and has many drawbacks.
The biggest drawback is that your relationships are made useless by it, in terms of maintaining data integrity. There's nothing stopping someone from assigning a CountryCode where a TrafficTypeId should be, and so on.
Another drawback would be that having one larger table will likely perform worse than many smaller, specialized tables; due to extra, unnecessary blocking.
Your may still want to implement some type of inheritance concept, but that'll be best done in whatever code accesses the database.
In my project (ASP.NET MVC + NHibernate) I have all my entities, lets say Documents, described by set of custom metadata. Metadata is contained in a structure that can have multiple tags, categories etc. These terms have the most importance for users seeking the document they want, so it has an impact on views as well as underlying data structures, database querying etc.
From view side of application, what interests me the most are the string values for the terms. Ideally I would like to operate directly on the collections of strings like that:
class MetadataAsSeenInViews
{
public IList<string> Categories;
public IList<string> Tags;
// etc.
}
From model perspective, I could use the same structure, do the simplest-possible ORM mapping and use it in queries like "fetch all documents with metadata exactly like this".
But that kind of structure could turn out useless if the application needs to perform complex database queries like "fetch all documents, for which at least one of categories is IN (cat1, cat2, ..., catN) OR at least one of tags is IN (tag1, ..., tagN)". In that case, for performance reasons, we would probably use numeric keys for categories and tags.
So one can imagine a structure opposite to MetadataAsSeenInViews that operates on numeric keys and provide complex mappings of integers to strings and other way round. But that solution doesn't really satisfy me for several reasons:
it smells like single responsibility violation, as we're dealing with database-specific issues when just wanting to describe Document business object
database keys are leaking through all layers
it adds unnecessary complexity in views
and I believe it doesn't take advantage of what can good ORM do
Ideally I would like to have:
single, as simple as possible metadata structure (ideally like the one at the top) in my whole application
complex querying issues addressed only in the database layer (meaning DB + ORM + at less as possible additional code for data layer)
Do you have any ideas how to structure the code and do the ORM mappings to be as elegant, as effective and as performant as it is possible?
I have found that it is problematic to use domain entities directly in the views. To help decouple things I apply two different techniques.
Most importantly I'm using separate ViewModel classes to pass data to views. When the data corresponds nicely with a domain model entity, AutoMapper can ease the pain of copying data between them, but otherwise a bit of manual wiring is needed. Seems like a lot of work in the beginning but really helps out once the project starts growing, and is especially important if you haven't just designed the database from scratch. I'm also using an intermediate service layer to obtain ViewModels in order to keep the controllers lean and to be able to reuse the logic.
The second option is mostly for performance reasons, but I usually end up creating custom repositories for fetching data that spans entities. That is, I create a custom class to hold the data I'm interested in, and then write custom LINQ (or whatever) to project the result into that. This can often dramatically increase performance over just fetching entities and applying the projection after the data has been retrieved.
Let me know if I haven't been elaborate enough.
The solution I've finally implemented don't fully satisfy me, but it'll do by now.
I've divided my Tags/Categories into "real entities", mapped in NHibernate as separate entities and "references", mapped as components depending from entities they describe.
So in my C# code I have two separate classes - TagEntity and TagReference which both carry the same information, looking from domain perspective. TagEntity knows database id and is managed by NHibernate sessions, whereas TagReference carries only the tag name as string so it is quite handy to use in the whole application and if needed it is still easily convertible to TagEntity using static lookup dictionary.
That entity/reference separation allows me to query the database in more efficient way, joining two tables only, like select from articles join articles_tags ... where articles_tags.tag_id = X without joining the tags table, which will be joined too when doing simple fully-object-oriented NHibernate queries.
The "party model" is a "pattern" for relational database design. At least part of it involves finding commonality between many entities, such as Customer, Employee, Partner, etc., and factoring that into some more "abstract" database tables.
I'd like to find out your thoughts on the following:
What are the core principles and motivating forces behind the party model?
What does it prescribe you do to your data model? (My bit above is pretty high level and quite possibly incorrect in some ways. I've been on a project that used it, but I was working with a separate team focused on other issues).
What has your experience led you to feel about it? Did you use it, and if so, would you do so again? What were the pros and cons?
Did the party model limit your choice of ORMs? For example, did you have to eliminate certain ORMs because they didn't allow for enough of an "abstraction layer" between your domain objects and your physical data model?
I'm sure every response won't address every one of those questions ... but anything touching on one or more of them is going to help me make some decisions I'm facing.
Thanks.
What are the core principles and motivating forces behind the party
model?
To the extent that I've used it, it's mostly about code reuse and flexibility. We've used it before in the guest / user / admin model and it certainly proves its value when you need to move a user from one group to another. Extend this to having organizations and companies represented with users under them, and it's really providing a form of abstraction that isn't particularly inherent in SQL.
What does it prescribe you do to your data model? (My bit above is
pretty high level and quite possibly
incorrect in some ways. I've been on a
project that used it, but I was
working with a separate team focused
on other issues).
You're pretty correct in your bit above, though it needs some more detail. You can imagine a situation where an entity in the database (call it a Party) contracts out to another Party, which may in turn subcontract work out. A party might be an Employee, a Contractor, or a Company, all subclasses of Party. From my understanding, you would have a Party table and then more specific tables for each subclass, which could then be further subclassed (Party -> Person -> Contractor).
What has your experience led you to feel about it? Did you use it, and if
so, would you do so again? What were
the pros and cons?
It has its benefits if you need flexibly to add new types to your system and create relationships between types that you didn't expect at the beginning and architect in (users moving to a new level, companies hiring other companies, etc). It also gives you the benefit of running a single query and retrieving data for multiple types of parties (Companies,Employees,Contractors). On the flip side, you're adding additional layers of abstraction to get to the data you actually need and are increasing load (or at least the number of joins) on the database when you're querying for a specific type. If your abstraction goes too far, you'll likely need to run multiple queries to retrieve the data as the complexity would start to become detrimental to readability and database load.
Did the party model limit your choice of ORMs? For example, did you
have to eliminate certain ORMs because
they didn't allow for enough of an
"abstraction layer" between your
domain objects and your physical data
model?
This is an area that I'm admittedly a bit weak in, but I've found that using views and mirrored abstraction in the application layer haven't made this too much of a problem. The real problem for me has always been a "where is piece of data X living" when I want to read the data source directly (it's not always intuitive for new developers on the system either).
The idea behind the party models (aka entity schema) is to define a database that leverages some of the scalability benefits of schema-free databases. The party model does that by defining its entities as party type records, as opposed to one table per entity. The result is an extremely normalized database with very few tables and very little knowledge about the semantic meaning of the data it stores. All that knowledge is pushed to the data access in code. Database upgrades using the party model are minimal to none, since the schema never changes. It’s essentially a glorified key-value pair data model structure with some fancy names and a couple of extra attributes.
Pros:
Kick-ass horizontal scalability. Once your 5-6 tables are defined in your entity model, you can go to the beach and sip margaritas. You can virtually scale this database out as much as you want with minimum efforts.
The database supports any data structure you throw at it. You can also change data structures and party/entities definitions on the fly without affecting your application. This is very very powerful.
You can model any arbitrary data entity by adding records, not changing the schema. Meaning you can say goodbye to schema migration scripts.
This is programmers’ paradise, since the code they write will define the actual entities they use in code, and there are no mappings from Objects to Tables or anything like that. You can think of the Party table as the base object of your framework of choice (System.Object for .NET)
Cons:
Party/Entity models never play well with ORMs, so forget about using EF or NHibernate to get semantically meaningful entities out of your entity database.
Lots of joins. Performance tuning challenges. This ‘con’ is relative to the practices you use to define your entities, but is safe to say that you’ll be doing a lot more of those mind-bending queries that will bring you nightmares at night.
Harder to consume. Developers and DB pros unfamiliar with your business will have a harder time to get used to the entities exposed by these models. Since everything is abstract, there no diagram or visualization you can build on top of your database to explain what is stored to someone else.
Heavy data access models or business rules engines will be needed. Basically you have to do the work of understanding what the heck you want out of your database at some point, and your database model is not going to help you this time around.
If you are considering a party or entity schema in a relational database, you should probably take a look at other solutions like a NoSql data store, BigTable or KV Stores. There are some great products out there with massive deployments and traction such as MongoDB, DynamoDB, and Cassandra that pioneered this movement.
This is a vast topic, I would recommend reading The Data Model Resource Book Volume 3 - Universal Patterns for Data Modeling by Len Silverston and Paul Agnew.
I've just received my copy and it's pretty good - It provides you with an overlook for many approaches to data modeling, including hybrid contextual role patterns and so on. It has detailed PROs and CONs for every approach.
There is a pletheora of ways to model party relationships and roles all with their benefits and disadvantages. The question that was accepted as an answer covers just one instance of a 'party model'.
For instance, in many approaches, notions like "Employee", "Project Manager" etc. are roles that a party can play within a certain context. I will try to give you a better breakdown once I get home.
When I was part of a team implementing these ideas in the early 1980's, it did not limit our choice of ORM's because those hadn't been invented yet.
I'd fall back on those ideas any time, as that particular project was one of the most convincing proofs-of-concept I have ever seen of a "revolutionary" idea (which it certainly was at the time).
It forces you to nothing. And it doesn't stop you from anything (from any mistake, I mean). The one defining your own information model is you.
All parties have lots of properties in common. The fact that they have a name and such (we called those "signaletics"). The fact that they have principal/primary locations called "addresses". The fact that they all are involved, in some sense, in the business' contracts.
as a simple talk from my understanding: Party modeling gives the flexibility and needs more effort (like T-sql join and ...) to be implemented.
I also wanna point that, "using Party modeling (serialization/generalization) gives you the ability to have FK-Relation to other tables". for example: think of different types of users (admin, user, ...) which generalized into User table, and you can have UserID in your Authorization table.
I'm not sure, but the party model sounds like a particular case of the generalization-specialization pattern. A search on "generalization specialization relational modeling" finds some interesting articles.
I have been programming in C# and Java for a little over a year and have a decent grasp of object oriented programming, but my new side project requires a database-driven model. I'm using C# and Linq which seems to be a very powerful tool but I'm having trouble with designing a database around my object oriented approach.
My two main question are:
How do I deal with inheritance in my database?
Let's say I'm building a staff rostering application and I have an abstract class, Event. From Event I derive abstract classes ShiftEvent and StaffEvent. I then have concrete classes Shift (derived from ShiftEvent) and StaffTimeOff (derived from StaffEvent). There are other derived classes, but for the sake of argument these are enough.
Should I have a separate table for ShiftEvents and StaffEvents? Maybe I should have separate tables for each concrete class? Both of these approaches seem like they would give me problems when interacting with the database. Another approach could be to have one Event table, and this table would have nullable columns for every type of data in any of my concrete classes. All of these approaches feel like they could impede extensibility down the road. More than likely there is a third approach that I have not considered.
My second question:
How do I deal with collections and one-to-many relationships in an object oriented way?
Let's say I have a Products class and a Categories class. Each instance of Categories would contain one or more products, but the products themselves should have no knowledge of categories. If I want to implement this in a database, then each product would need a category ID which maps to the categories table. But this introduces more coupling than I would prefer from an OO point of view. The products shouldn't even know that the categories exist, much less have a data field containing a category ID! Is there a better way?
Linq to SQL using a table per class solution:
http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/bursteg/archive/2007/10/01/linq-to-sql-inheritance.aspx
Other solutions (such as my favorite, LLBLGen) allow other models. Personally, I like the single table solution with a discriminator column, but that is probably because we often query across the inheritance hierarchy and thus see it as the normal query, whereas querying a specific type only requires a "where" change.
All said and done, I personally feel that mapping OO into tables is putting the cart before the horse. There have been continual claims that the impedance mismatch between OO and relations has been solved... and there have been plenty of OO specific databases. None of them have unseated the powerful simplicity of the relation.
Instead, I tend to design the database with the application in mind, map those tables to entities and build from there. Some find this as a loss of OO in the design process, but in my mind the data layer shouldn't be talking high enough into your application to be affecting the design of the higher order systems, just because you used a relational model for storage.
I had the opposite problem: how to get my head around OO after years of database design. Come to that, a decade earlier I had the problem of getting my head around SQL after years of "structured" flat-file programming. There are jsut enough similarities betwwen class and data entity decomposition to mislead you into thinking that they're equivalent. They aren't.
I tend to agree with the view that once you're committed to a relational database for storage then you should design a normalised model and compromise your object model where unavoidable. This is because you're more constrained by the DBMS than you are with your own code - building a compromised data model is more likley to cause you pain.
That said, in the examples given, you have choices: if ShiftEvent and StaffEvent are mostly similar in terms of attributes and are often processed together as Events, then I'd be inclined to implement a single Events table with a type column. Single-table views can be an effective way to separate out the sub-classes and on most db platforms are updatable. If the classes are more different in terms of attributes, then a table for each might be more appropriate. I don't think I like the three-table idea:"has one or none" relationships are seldom necessary in relational design. Anyway, you can always create an Event view as the union of the two tables.
As to Product and Category, if one Category can have many Products, but not vice versa, then the normal relational way to represent this is for the product to contain a category id. Yes, it's coupling, but it's only data coupling, and it's not a mortal sin. The column should probably be indexed, so that it's efficient to retrieve all products for a category. If you're really horrified by the notion then pretend it's a many-to-many relationship and use a separate ProductCategorisation table. It's not that big a deal, although it implies a potential relationship that doesn't really exist and might mislead somone coming to the app in future.
In my opinion, these paradigms (the Relational Model and OOP) apply to different domains, making it difficult (and pointless) to try to create a mapping between them.
The Relational Model is about representing facts (such as "A is a person"), i.e. intangible things that have the property of being "unique". It doesn't make sense to talk about several "instances" of the same fact - there is just the fact.
Object Oriented Programming is a programming paradigm detailing a way to construct computer programs to fulfill certain criteria (re-use, polymorphism, information hiding...). An object is typically a metaphor for some tangible thing - a car, an engine, a manager or a person etc. Tangible things are not facts - there may be two distinct objects with identical state without them being the same object (hence the difference between equals and == in Java, for example).
Spring and similar tools provide access to relational data programmatically, so that the facts can be represented by objects in the program. This does not mean that OOP and the Relational Model are the same, or should be confused with eachother. Use the Realational Model to design databases (collections of facts) and OOP to design computer programs.
TL;DR version (Object-Relational impedance mismatch distilled):
Facts = the recipe on your fridge.
Objects = the content of your fridge.
Frameworks such as
Hibernate http://www.hibernate.org/
JPA http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/J2EE/jpa/
can help you to smoothly solve this problem of inheritance. e.g. http://www.java-tips.org/java-ee-tips/enterprise-java-beans/inheritance-and-the-java-persistenc.html
I also got to understand database design, SQL, and particularly the data centered world view before tackling the object oriented approach. The object-relational-impedance-mismatch still baffles me.
The closest thing I've found to getting a handle on it is this: looking at objects not from an object oriented progamming perspective, or even from an object oriented design perspective but from an object oriented analysis perspective. The best book on OOA that I got was written in the early 90s by Peter Coad.
On the database side, the best model to compare with OOA is not the relational model of data, but the Entity-Relationship (ER) model. An ER model is not really relational, and it doesn't specify the logical design. Many relational apologists think that is ER's weakness, but it is actually its strength. ER is best used not for database design but for requirements analysis of a database, otherwise known as data analysis.
ER data analysis and OOA are surprisingly compatible with each other. ER, in turn is fairly compatible with relational data modeling and hence to SQL database design. OOA is, of course, compatible with OOD and hence to OOP.
This may seem like the long way around. But if you keep things abstract enough, you won't waste too much time on the analysis models, and you'll find it surprisingly easy to overcome the impedance mismatch.
The biggest thing to get over in terms of learning database design is this: data linkages like the foreign key to primary key linkage you objected to in your question are not horrible at all. They are the essence of tying related data together.
There is a phenomenon in pre database and pre object oriented systems called the ripple effect. The ripple effect is where a seemingly trivial change to a large system ends up causing consequent required changes all over the entire system.
OOP contains the ripple effect primarily through encapsulation and information hiding.
Relational data modeling overcomes the ripple effect primarily through physical data independence and logical data independence.
On the surface, these two seem like fundamentally contradictory modes of thinking. Eventually, you'll learn how to use both of them to good advantage.
My guess off the top of my head:
On the topic of inheritance I would suggest having 3 tables: Event, ShiftEvent and StaffEvent. Event has the common data elements kind of like how it was originally defined.
The last one can go the other way, I think. You could have a table with category ID and product ID with no other columns where for a given category ID this returns the products but the product may not need to get the category as part of how it describes itself.
The big question: how can you get your head around it? It just takes practice. You try implementing a database design, run into problems with your design, you refactor and remember for next time what worked and what didn't.
To answer your specific questions... this is a little bit of opinion thrown in, as in "how I would do it", not taking into account performance needs and such. I always start fully normalized and go from there based on real-world testing:
Table Event
EventID
Title
StartDateTime
EndDateTime
Table ShiftEvent
ShiftEventID
EventID
ShiftSpecificProperty1
...
Table Product
ProductID
Name
Table Category
CategoryID
Name
Table CategoryProduct
CategoryID
ProductID
Also reiterating what Pierre said - an ORM tool like Hibernate makes dealing with the friction between relational structures and OO structures much nicer.
There are several possibilities in order to map an inheritance tree to a relational model.
NHibernate for instance supports the 'table per class hierarchy', table per subclass and table per concrete class strategies:
http://www.hibernate.org/hib_docs/nhibernate/html/inheritance.html
For your second question:
You can create a 1:n relation in your DB, where the Products table has offcourse a foreign key to the Categories table.
However, this does not mean that your Product Class needs to have a reference to the Category instance to which it belongs to.
You can create a Category class, which contains a set or list of products, and you can create a product class, which has no notion of the Category to which it belongs.
Again, you can easy do this using (N)Hibernate;
http://www.hibernate.org/hib_docs/reference/en/html/collections.html
Sounds like you are discovering the Object-Relational Impedance Mismatch.
The products shouldn't even know that
the categories exist, much less have a
data field containing a category ID!
I disagree here, I would think that instead of supplying a category id you let your orm do it for you. Then in code you would have something like (borrowing from NHib's and Castle's ActiveRecord):
class Category
[HasMany]
IList<Product> Products {get;set;}
...
class Product
[BelongsTo]
Category ParentCategory {get;set;}
Then if you wanted to see what category the product you are in you'd just do something simple like:
Product.ParentCategory
I think you can setup the orm's differently, but either way for the inheritence question, I ask...why do you care? Either go about it with objects and forget about the database or do it a different way. Might seem silly, but unless you really really can't have a bunch of tables, or don't want a single table for some reason, why would you care about the database? For instance, I have the same setup with a few inheriting objects, and I just go about my business. I haven't looked at the actual database yet as it doesn't concern me. The underlying SQL is what is concerning me, and the correct data coming back.
If you have to care about the database then you're going to need to either modify your objects or come up with a custom way of doing things.
I guess a bit of pragmatism would be good here. Mappings between objects and tables always have a bit of strangeness here and there. Here's what I do:
I use Ibatis to talk to my database (Java to Oracle). Whenever I have an inheretance structure where I want a subclass to be stored in the database, I use a "discriminator". This is a trick where you have one table for all the Classes (Types), and have all fields which you could possibly want to store. There is one extra column in the table, containing a string which is used by Ibatis to see which type of object it needs to return.
It looks funny in the database, and sometimes can get you into trouble with relations to fields which are not in all Classes, but 80% of the time this is a good solution.
Regarding your relation between category and product, I would add a categoryId column to the product, because that would make life really easy, both SQL wise and Mapping wise. If you're really stuck on doing the "theoretically correct thing", you can consider an extra table which has only 2 colums, connecting the Categories and their products. It will work, but generally this construction is only used when you need many-to-many relations.
Try to keep it as simple as possible. Having a "academic solution" is nice, but generally means a bit of overkill and is harder to refactor because it is too abstract (like hiding the relations between Category and Product).
I hope this helps.