I have a database that has two tables, these tables look like this
codes
id | code | member_id
1 | 123 | 2
2 | 234 | 1
3 | 345 |
4 | 456 | 3
members
id | code_id | other info
1 | 2 | blabla
2 | 1 | blabla
3 | 4 | blabla
the basic idea is that if a code is taken then its member id field is filled in, however this is creating a circle link (members points to codes, codes points to members) is there a different way of doing this? is this actually a bad thing?
Update
To answer your questions there are three different code tables with approx 3.5 million codes each, each table is searched depending on different criteria, if the member_id column is empty then the code is unclaimed, else, the code is claimed, this is done so that when we are searching the database we do not need to include another table to tell if it it claimed.
the members table contains the claimants for every single code, so all 10.5 million members
the additional info has things like mobile, flybuys.
the mobile is how we identify the member, but each entry is considered a different member.
It's a bad thing because you can end up with anomalies. For example:
codes
id | code | member_id
1 | 123 | 2
members
id | code_id | other info
2 | 4 | blabla
See the anomaly? Code 1 references its corresponding member, but that member doesn't reference the same code in return. The problem with anomalies is you can't tell which one is the correct, intended reference and which one is a mistake.
Eliminating redundant columns reduces the chance for anomalies. This is a simple process that follows a few very well defined rules, called rules of normalization.
In your example, I would drop the codes.member_id column. I infer that a member must reference a code, but a code does not necessarily reference a member. So I would make members.code_id reference codes.id. But it could go the other way; you don't give enough information for the reader to be sure (as #OMG Ponies commented).
Yeah, this is not good because it presents opportunities for data integrity problems. You've got a one-to-one relationship, so either remove Code_id from the members table, or member_id from the codes table. (in this case it seems like it would make more sense to drop code_id from members since it sounds like you're more frequently going to be querying codes to see which are not assigned than querying members to see which have no code, but you can make that call)
You could simply drop the member_id column and use a foreign key relationship (or its absence) to signify the relationship or lack thereof. The code_id column would then be used as a foreign key to the code. Personally, I do think it's bad simply because it makes it more work to ensure that you don't have corrupt relationships in the DB -- i.e., you have to check that the two columns are synchronized between the tables -- and it doesn't really add anything in the general case. If you are running into performance problems, then you may need to denormalize, but I'd wait until it was definitely a problem (and you'd likely replicate more than just the id in that case).
It depends on what you're doing. If each member always gets exactly one unique code then just put the actual code in the member table.
If there are a set of codes and several members share a code (but each member still has just one) then remove the member_id from the codes table and only store the unique codes. Access a specific code through a member. (you can still join the code table to search on codes)
If a member can have multiple codes then remove the code_id from the member table and the member_id from the code table can create a third table that relates members to codes. Each record in the member table should be a unique record and each record in the code table should be a unique record.
What is the logic behind having the member code in the code table?
It's unnecessary since you can always just do a join if you need both pieces of information.
By having it there you create the potential for integrity issues since you need to update BOTH tables whenever an update is made.
Yes this is a bad idea. Never set up a database to have circular references if you can help it. Now any change has to be made both places and if one place is missed, you have a severe data integrity problem.
First question can each code be assigned to more than one member? Or can each member have more than one code? (this includes over time as well as at any one moment if you need historical records of who had what code when))If the answer to either is yes, then your current structure cannot work. If the answer to both is no, why do you need two tables?
If you can have mulitple codes and multiple members you need a bridging table that has memberid and code id. If you can have multiple members assigned one code, put the code id in the members table. If it is the other way it should be the memberid in the code table. Then properly set up the foreign key relationship.
#Bill Karwin correctly identifies this as a probably design flaw which will lead to anomalies.
Assuming code and member are distinct entities, I would create a thrid table...
What is the relationship between a code and member called? An oath? If this is a real life relationship, someone with domain knowledge in the business will be able to give it a name. If not look for further design flaws:
oaths
code_id | member_id
1 | 2
2 | 1
4 | 3
The data suggest that a unique constraint is required for (code_id, member_id).
Once the data is 'scrubbed', drop the columns codes.member_id and members.code_id.
Related
I have a table of tasks,
id | name
----+-------------
1 | brush teeth
2 | do laundry
and a table of states.
taskid | state
--------+-------------
1 | completed
2 | uncompleted
There is a bijective correspondence between the tables, i.e.
each row in the task table corresponds to exactly one row in the state table.
Another way of implementing this would be to place a state row in the task table.
id | name | state
----+-------------+-------------
1 | brush teeth | completed
2 | do laundry | uncompleted
The main reason why I have selected to use two tables instead of this one, is because updating the state will then cause a change in the task id.
I have other tables referencing the task(id) column, and do not want to have to update all those other tables too when altering a task's state.
I have two questions about this.
Is it good practice to have two tables in bijective row-row correspondence?
Is there a way I can ensure a constraint that there is exactly one row in the state table corresponding to each row in the task table?
The system I am using is postgresql.
You can ensure the 1-1 correspondence by making the id in each table a primary key and a foreign key that references the id in the other table. This is allowed and it guarantees 1-1'ness.
Sometimes, you want such tables, but one table has fewer rows than the other. This occurs when there is a subsetting relationship, and you don't want the additional columns on all rows.
Another purpose is to store separate columns in different places. When I learned about databases, this approach was called vertical partitioning. Nowadays, columnar databases are relatively common; these take the notion to the extreme -- a separate "store" for each column (although the "store" is not exactly a "table").
Why would you do this? Here are some reasons:
You have infrequently used columns that you do not want to load for every query on the more frequent columns.
You have frequently updated columns and you do not want to lock the rest of the columns.
You have too many columns to store in one row.
You have different security requirements on different columns.
Postgres does offer other mechanisms that you might find relevant. In particular, table inheritance might be useful in your situation.
All that said, you would not normally design a database like this. There are good reasons for doing so, but it is more typical to put all columns related to an entity in the same table.
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.)
Lets say I have 3 models:
User
Page
Comments
I asked a question based on if I should have each model keep track of its relationships: SQL relationships and best practices
an example of this would be a "Pages" table that states who its author was... The problem seemed to be that if 2 users were the author of the one page, you'd have to add a new specific table called PageRelationshipsWithUsers that might have a reference to the PageID and the UserID that created it and a separate row for the co-author.
Understandably this sounds a bit naff. I would end up with a heck load of relation tables and most likely, it could be replaced with just the one multi-purpose relationship table... So I decided to come up with a relationships table like the following:
Relationships Table New
RelationshipID | ItemID | LinkID | ItemType | LinkType | Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | 23(PageID) | 7(UserID) | ("Page") | ("User") | TRUE
2 | 22(CommentID) | 7(UserID) | ("Comment") | ("User") | TRUE
3 | 22(CommentID) | 23(PageID) | ("Comment") | ("Page") | TRUE
however, I would very much appreciate some input as to how good of an idea laying out my relationships table like this is.
Any thoughts?
Answer was told to me by a work colleague:
Imagine the above relationships table for the model "Book"
A User can Rent a book, so the relation is User -> Book...
But what if he can buy a book too: User->Book....
Ooops, we need a new relationship... and considering this relationship table was supposed to be the 1 size fits all, we now have a requirement to add a new separate table... whoops.
So the answer is NO NO NO. don't, it's naughty. Keep your relationship tables separate and specific.
Your suggestion for a relationship table is not optimal for several reasons:
It's difficult to write queries that join tables through the relationship table, as you will need filters on the ItemType and LinkType columns, which is not intuitive when writing queries.
If a need arises to add new entities in the future, that use different datatypes for their primary keys, you cannot easily store ID's of various datatypes in your ItemID and LinkID columns.
You cannot create explicit foreign keys in your database, to enforce referential integrity, which is possibly the best reason to avoid the design you suggest.
Query performance might suffer.
When normalizing a database, you should not be afraid to have many tables. Just make sure to use a naming convention that makes sense and is self-documenting. For example, you could name the relation table between authors and pages "PageAuthors", instead of "Pages".
I couldn't figure out what terms to google, so help tagging this question or just pointing me in the way of a related question would be helpful.
I believe that I have a typical many-to-many relationship:
CREATE TABLE groups (
id integer PRIMARY KEY);
CREATE TABLE elements (
id integer PRIMARY KEY);
CREATE TABLE groups_elements (
groups_id integer REFERENCES groups,
elements_id integer REFERENCES elements,
PRIMARY KEY (groups_id, elements_id));
I want to have a constraint that there can only be one groups_id for a given set of elements_ids.
For example, the following is valid:
groups_id | elements_id
1 | 1
1 | 2
2 | 2
2 | 3
The following is not valid, because then groups 1 and 2 would be equivalent.
groups_id | elements_id
1 | 1
1 | 2
2 | 2
2 | 1
Not every subset of elements must have a group (this is not the power set), but new subsets may be formed. I suspect that my design is incorrect since I'm really talking about adding a group as a single entity.
How can I create identifiers for subsets of elements without risk of duplicating subsets?
That is an interesting problem.
One solution, albeit a klunky one, would be to store a concatenation of groups_id and elements_id in the groups table: 1-1-2 and make it a unique index.
Trying to do a search for duplicate groups before inserting a new row, would be an enormous performance hit.
The following query would spit out offending group ids:
with group_elements_arr as (
select groups_id, array_agg(elements_id order by elements_id) elements
from group_elements
group by groups_id )
select elements, count(*), array_agg(groups_id) offending_groups
from group_elements_arr
group by elements
having count(*) > 1;
Depending on the size of group_elements and its change rate you might get away with stuffing something along this lines into a trigger watching group_elements. If that's not fast enough you can materialize group_elements_arr into a real table managed by triggers.
And I think, the trigger should be FOR EACH STATEMENT and INITIALLY DEFERRED for easy building up a new group.
This link from user ypercube was most helpful: unique constraint on a set. In short, a bit of what everyone is saying is correct.
It's a question of tradeoffs, but here are the best options:
a) Add a hash or some other combination of element values to the groups table and make it unique, then populate the groups_elements table off of it using triggers. Pros of this method are that it preserves querying ability and enforces the constraint so long as you deny naked updates to groups_elements. Cons are that it adds complexity and you've now introduced logic like "how do you uniquely represent a set of elements" into your database.
b) Leave the tables as-is and control the access to groups_elements with your access layer, be it a stored procedure or otherwise. This has the advantage of preserving querying ability and keeps the database itself simple. However, it means that you are moving an analytic constraint into your access layer, which necessarily means that your access layer will need to be more complex. Another point is that it separates what the data should be from the data itself, which has both pros and cons. If you need faster access to whether or not a set already exists, you can attack that problem separately.
SQL Server 2008 Database Question.
I have 2 tables, for arguments sake called Customers and Users where a single Customer can have 1 to n Users. The Customers table generates a CustomerId which is a seeded identity with a +1 increment on it. What I'm after in the Users table is a compound key comprising the CustomerId and a sequence number such that in all cases, the first user has a sequence of 1 and subsequent users are added at x+1.
So the table looks like this...
CustomerId (PK, FK)
UserId (PK)
Name
...and if for example, Customer 485 had three customers the data would look like...
CustomerId | UserId | Name
----------
485 | 1 | John
485 | 2 | Mark
485 | 3 | Luke
I appreciate that I can manually add the 1,2,3,...,n entry for UserId however I would like to get this to happen automatically on row insert in SQL, so that in the example shown I could effectively insert rows with the CustomerId and the Name with SQL Server protecting the Identity etc. Is there a way to do this through the database design itself - when I set UserId as an identity it runs 1 to infinity across all customers which isn't what I am looking for - have I got a setting wrong somewhere, or is this not an option?
Hope that makes sense - thanks for your help
I can think of no automatic way to do this without implementing a custom Stored Procedure that inserted the rows and checked to increment the Id appropriately, althouh others with more knowledge may have a better idea.
However, this smells to me of naturalising a surrogate key - which is not always a good idea.
More info here:
http://www.agiledata.org/essays/keys.html
That's not really an option with a regular identity column, but you could set up an insert trigger to auto populate the user id though.
The naive way to do this would be to have the trigger select the max user id from the users table for the customer id on the inserted record, then add one to that. However, you'll run into concurrency problems there if more than one person is creating a user record at the same time.
A better solution would be to have a NextUserID column on the customers table. In your trigger you would:
Start a transaction.
Increment the NextUserID for the customer (locking the row).
Select the updated next user id.
use that for the new User record.
commit the transaction.
This should ensure that simultaneous additions of users don't result in the same user id being used more than once.
All that said, I would recommend that you just don't do it. It's more trouble than it's worth and just smells like a bad idea to begin with.
So you want a generated user_id field that increments within the confines of a customer_id.
I can't think of one database where that concept exists.
You could implement it with a trigger. But my question is: WHY?
Surrogate keys are supposed to not have any kind of meaning. Why would you try to make a key that, simultaneously, is the surrogate and implies order?
My suggestions:
Create a date_created field, defaulting to getDate(). That will allow you to know the order (time based) in which each user_id was created.
Create an ordinal field - which can be updated by a trigger, to support that order.
Hope that helps.