I have a generated SQL table which fits nicely in rows/columns, but I'd also like to store some information about that table such as:
When was it generated?
Who generated it?
What script was run to generate it?
Where did the data come from?
A list of key-pair values which didn't fit in the table and really only describe more information about the source
I'm a little new to SQL, but how would one normally store this information?
I would image that after I CREATE TABLE foo, I would need to then CREATE TABLE foo_meta, then each question will be a column and I'll need to INSERT just one row: the answers to those questions. Is that a normal way to handle this?
Some clarifications,
I'm using SQLite3
Each table represents recorded time-history data where each column is a parameter and each row is a time-step.
Each table will have associated metadata
The meta-data contains things like initial conditions and other conditions which weren't recorded in the time-history.
I will add a bunch of test-results to the same database. Each test will have a data table (time-history) and a meta-data table.
Sorry to disturb you again. lol :)
I am looking at the answers given on similar questions but they are still not very helpful.
Here's my case:
I want to change the schema on my table to auto fill one column.
What I understand is the update function is only for values, and would not apply when new values will be entered in the future.
I want to be able to set the Gname according to the Grade so that I can have. so that I can have 1 for novice or new, 2 for standard, 3- intermediate and 4- Expert.
Can someone help please? or direct me towards the right documentation.
Thanks to you all
typically this would be done through the use of a lookup table.
So you would have your table you have then add another table for Gname that would carry the Grade Id 1,2,3,4 and the Name. Then when you want to add that as a column to your query you would do that through joining your gname table with your table on the ID.
however since sql-server 2008 there is also a Computed Column https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188300(v=sql.105).aspx
If you want to enact the computed column you could alter your table and add it.
ALTER TABLE TableName
ADD ComputedColumnName AS (CASE WHEN Grade = 1 THEN 'novice' WHEN Grade = 2 THEN 'standard'.....END)
Yet another method some programmers use is to not put the lookup anywhere in the database but rather use an enumeration in their application layer to handle the translation.
The first method is less demand of storage space in your database and doesn't require schema/table definition change to rename or add additional gnames. Plus it leads to more data integrity, because I have seen enumerations mess up a pretty significant eCommerce site and cause programmers a lot of headaches trying to debug.
I am trying to figure out what the best way to design this database would be. Currently what I have works, but it requires me to hard-code values where I would like it to be dynamic in the future.
Here is my current database design:
As you can see, for both the Qualities and the PressSettingsSet tables, there are many columns that are hard-coded such as BlownInsert, Blowout, Temperature1, Temperature2, etc.
What I am trying to accomplish is to have these be dynamic. Each job will have these same settings, but I would like to allow the users to define these settings. Would it be best to create a table with just a name field and have a one-to-one relationship to another table with a value for the field and a relation to the Job Number?
I hope this makes sense, any help is appreciated. I can make a database diagram of how I think it should work if that is more helpful to what I am trying to convey. I think that what I have in mind will work, but it just seems like it will be creating a lot of extra rows in the database, so I wanted to see if there is possibly a better way.
Would it be best to create a table with just a name field and have a one-to-one relationship to another table with a value for the field and a relation to the Job Number?
That would be the simplest - you could expand that by adding data-effective fields or de-normalize it by putting it all in one table (with just a name and value field).
Are the values for the settings different per job? If so then yes a "key" table" with the name ans a one-to-many relationship to the value per job would be best.
The user wants to add new fields in UI dynamically. This new field should get stored in database and they should be allowed to perform CRUD on it.
Now I can do this by specifying a XML but I wanted a better way where these new columns are searchable. Also the idea of firing ALTER statement and adding a new column seems wrong.
Can anyone help me with a design pattern on database server side of how to solve this problem?
This can be approached using a key value system. You create a table with the primary key column(s) of the table you want to annotate, a column for the name of the attribute, and a column for its value. When you user wants to add an attribute (say height) to the record of person 123 you add a row to the new table with the values (123, 'HEIGHT', '140.5').
In general you cast the values to TEXT for storage but if you know all the attributes will be numeric you can choose a different type for the value column. You can also (not recommended) use several different value columns depending on the type of the data.
This technique has the advantage that you don't need to modify the database structure to add new attributes and attributes are only stored for those records that have them. The disadvantage is that querying is not as straightforward as if the columns were all in the main data table.
There is no reason why a qualified business user should not be allowed to add a column to a table. It is less likely to cause a problem than just about anything else you can imagine including adding a new row to a table or changing. the value of a data element.
Using either of the methods described above do not avoid any risk; they are simply throwbacks to COBOL filler fields or unnecessary embellishments of the database function. The result can still be unnormalized and inaccurate.
These same business persons add columns to spreadsheets and tables to Word documents without DBAs getting in their way.
Of course, just adding the column is the smallest part of getting an information system to work, but it is often the case that it is perceived to be an almost insurmountable barrier. It is in fact 5 min worth of work assuming you know where to put it. Adding a column to the proper table with the proper datatype is easy to do, easy to use, and has the best chance of encouraging data quality.
Find out what the maximum number of user-added fields will be and add them before hand. For example 'User1', 'User2', 'User3', 'User4'...etc. You can then enable the fields on the UI based on some configurable settings.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
It it ok to have a table with just one column? I know it isn't technically illegal, but is it considered poor design?
EDIT:
Here are a few examples:
You have a table with the 50 valid US state codes, but you have no need to store the verbose state names.
An email blacklist.
Someone mentioned adding a key field. The way I see it, this single column WOULD be the primary key.
In terms of relational algebra this would be a unary relation, meaning "this thing exists"
Yes, it's fine to have a table defining such a relation: for instance, to define a domain.
The values of such a table should be natural primary keys of course.
A lookup table of prime numbers is what comes to my mind first.
Yes, it's certainly good design to design a table in such a way as to make it most efficient. "Bad RDBMS Design" is usually centered around inefficiency.
However, I have found that most cases of single column design could benefit from an additional column. For example, State Codes can typically have the Full State name spelled out in a second column. Or a blacklist can have notes associated. But, if your design really does not need that information, then it's perfectly ok to have the single column.
I've used them in the past. One client of mine wanted to auto block anyone trying to sign up with a phone number in this big list he had so it was just one big blacklist.
If there is a valid need for it, then I don't see a problem. Maybe you just want a list of possibilities to display for some reason and you want to be able to dynamically change it, but have no need to link it to another table.
One case that I found sometimes is something like this:
Table countries_id, contains only one column with numeric ID for each country.
Table countries_description, contains the column with country ID, a column With language ID and a column with the localized country name.
Table company_factories, contains information for each factory of the company, including the country in Wich is located.
So to maintain data coherence and language independent data in the tables the database uses this schema with tables with only one column to allow foreign keys without language dependencies.
In this case I think the existence of one column tables are justified.
Edited in response to the comment by: Quassnoi
(source: ggpht.com)
In this schema I can define a foreign key in the table company_factories that does not require me to include Language column on the table, but if I don't have the table countries_id, I must include Language column on the table to define the foreign key.
There would be rare cases where a single-column table makes sense. I did one database where the list of valid language codes was a single-column table used as a foreign key. There was no point in having a different key, since the code itself was the key. And there was no fixed description since the language code descriptions would vary by language for some contexts.
In general, any case where you need an authoritative list of values that do not have any additional attributes is a good candidate for a one-column table.
I use single-column tables all the time -- depending, of course, on whether the app design already uses a database. Once I've endured the design overhead of establishing a database connection, I put all mutable data into tables where possible.
I can think of two uses of single-column tables OTMH:
1) Data item exists. Often used in dropdown lists. Also used for simple legitimacy tests.
Eg. two-letter U.S. state abbreviations; Zip codes that we ship to; words legal in Scrabble; etc.
2) Sparse binary attribute, ie., in a large table, a binary attribute that will be true for only a very few records. Instead of adding a new boolean column, I might create a separate table containing the keys of the records for which the attribute is true.
Eg. employees that have a terminal disease; banks with a 360-day year (most use 365); etc.
-Al.
Mostly I've seen this in lookup type tables such as the state table you described. However, if you do this be sure to set the column as the primary key to force uniqueness. If you can't set this value as unique, then you shouldn't be using one column.
No problem as long as it contains unique values.
I would say in general, yes. Not sure why you need just one column. There are some exceptions to this that I have seen used effectively. It depends on what you're trying to achieve.
They are not really good design when you're thinking of the schema of the database, but really should only be used as utility tables.
I've seen numbers tables used effectively in the past.
The purpose of a database is to relate pieces of information to each other. How can you do that when there is no data to relate to?
Maybe this is some kind of compilation table (i.e. FirstName + LastName + Birthdate), though I'm still not sure why you would want to do that.
EDIT: I could see using this kind of table for a simple list of some kind. Is that what you are using it for?
Yes as long as the field is the primary key as you said it would be. The reason is because if you insert duplicate data those rows will be readonly. If you try to delete one of the rows that are duplicated. it will not work because the server will not know which row to delete.
The only use case I can conceive of is a table of words perhaps for a word game. You access the table just to verify that a string is a word: select word from words where word = ?. But there are far better data structures for holding a list of words than a relational database.
Otherwise, data in a database is usually placed in a database to take advantage of the relationships between various attributes of the data. If your data has no attributes beyond its value how will these relationship be developed?
So, while not illegal, in general you probably should not have a table with just one column.
All my tables have at least four tech fields, serial primary key, creation and modification timestamps, and soft delete boolean. In any blacklist, you will also want to know who did add the entry. So for me, answer is no, a table with only one column would not make sense except when prototyping something.
Yes that is perfectly fine. but an ID field couldn't hurt it right?