I have to add functionality to an existing application and I've run into a data situation that I'm not sure how to model. I am being restricted to the creation of new tables and code. If I need to alter the existing structure I think my client may reject the proposal.. although if its the only way to get it right this is what I will have to do.
I have an Item table that can me link to any number of tables, and these tables may increase over time. The Item can only me linked to one other table, but the record in the other table may have many items linked to it.
Examples of the tables/entities being linked to are Person, Vehicle, Building, Office. These are all separate tables.
Example of Items are Pen, Stapler, Cushion, Tyre, A4 Paper, Plastic Bag, Poster, Decoration"
For instance a Poster may be allocated to a Person or Office or Building. In the future if they add a Conference Room table it may also be added to that.
My intital thoughts are:
Item
{
ID,
Name
}
LinkedItem
{
ItemID,
LinkedToTableName,
LinkedToID
}
The LinkedToTableName field will then allow me to identify the correct table to link to in my code.
I'm not overly happy with this solution, but I can't quite think of anything else. Please help! :)
Thanks!
It is not a good practice to store table names as column values. This is a bad hack.
There are two standard ways of doing what you are trying to do. The first is called single-table inheritance. This is easily understood by ORM tools but trades off some normalization. The idea is, that all of these entities - Person, Vehicle, whatever - are stored in the same table, often with several unused columns per entry, along with a discriminator field that identifies what type the entity is.
The discriminator field is usually an integer type, that is mapped to some enumeration in your code. It may also be a foreign key to some lookup table in your database, identifying which numbers correspond to which types (not table names, just descriptions).
The other way to do this is multiple-table inheritance, which is better for your database but not as easy to map in code. You do this by having a base table which defines some common properties of all the objects - perhaps just an ID and a name - and all of your "specific" tables (Person etc.) use the base ID as a unique foreign key (usually also the primary key).
In the first case, the exclusivity is implicit, since all entities are in one table. In the second case, the relationship is between the Item and the base entity ID, which also guarantees uniqueness.
Note that with multiple-table inheritance, you have a different problem - you can't guarantee that a base ID is used by exactly one inheritance table. It could be used by several, or not used at all. That is why multiple-table inheritance schemes usually also have a discriminator column, to identify which table is "expected." Again, this discriminator doesn't hold a table name, it holds a lookup value which the consumer may (or may not) use to determine which other table to join to.
Multiple-table inheritance is a closer match to your current schema, so I would recommend going with that unless you need to use this with Linq to SQL or a similar ORM.
See here for a good detailed tutorial: Implementing Table Inheritance in SQL Server.
Find something common to Person, Vehicle, Building, Office. For the lack of a better term I have used Entity. Then implement super-type/sub-type relationship between the Entity and its sub-types. Note that the EntityID is a PK and a FK in all sub-type tables. Now, you can link the Item table to the Entity (owner).
In this model, one item can belong to only one Entity; one Entity can have (own) many items.
your link table is ok.
the trouble you will have is that you will need to generate dynamic sql at runtime. parameterized sql does not typically allow the objects inthe FROM list to be parameters.
i fyou want to avoid this, you may be able to denormalize a little - say by creating a table to hold the id (assuming the ids are unique across the other tables) and the type_id representing which table is the source, and a generated description - e.g. the name value from the inital record.
you would trigger the creation of this denormalized list when the base info is modified, and you could use that for generalized queries - and then resort to your dynamic queries when needed at runtime.
Related
I have a very simple table diagram from modeling my application. The problem is I am second guessing my relation between Vendor and VendorOrder. The VendorOrders table should store all vendororders in the system. To get all orders for a certain apartment, you would just use the PK and FK relationship to gather that data. Is there anything I should improve with the overall design?
Diagram:
There's three things I see that you could improve this by doing.
Create an intersection table between your Apartment and Resident tables called ApartmentResidents, where each table references the intersection table with a one to many relationship. In this ERD, it only allows for one resident to be registered to an apartment. If a resident lives in more than one apartment for the lifetime of this database, you'll need to register them as an entirely new resident.
Intersection table example
In your Vendor table, instead of using a name as your primary key I would create an id instead. Using things that have a real-world value as your primary key can get messy for a number of reasons:
If two vendors have the same name, like "Johnson's Repair", you'll need to misspell one of them for it to be a valid key.
If you typo a vendor's name, you're also going to contain a reference to that typo in the foreign key tables (Which also might make it not show in results if you do a select query for the correct spelling).
Placing an index on a string is less performant than if you put it on an auto incrementing integer key.
(Optional) I usually name my database tables pluralized, like "Apartments", or "Vendors". It makes the SQL syntax read more like a sentence inside the query. If I remember right that's also one of the things that SQL's creator was going for too with the syntax design.
I'm designing a database from scratch and I'm wondering if the way I'm using one-to-one relationships is correct.
Imagine I have a table that needs the columns city and country_id, the first being alphanumeric and the second being a foreign key to another table. Should I place these in a locations table and use a one-to-one relationship?
Another example:
I have a table with the factory information of a device like the serial number and other fields. These will later be used to register a device in another table. Of course this is a one-to-one relationship, but should the columns of the first table be in the second table instead? Have in mind that the registrations table has another 4-5 columns.
I've read a lot of times that these relationships can often be omitted. However, I like the separation of concerns that creating a new table can give, in some cases.
Thanks in advance!
This may be a duplicate question, e.g. see:
SQL one to one relationship vs. single table
There's no perfect answer to this question as it depends on use case, but here's the rule of thumb I recommend abiding by: if you can already envision the potential need for separate tables, then I would err on the side of splitting them and using a 1:1 relationship. For example, imagine in the future that you want to have some kind of one-to-many relationship between some new table and the country table, or between some new table and the device table. In these cases you probably don't want city information mixed up with the former, and you probably don't want device registration information mixed up with the latter. By keeping your DB schema normalized, you can better future-proof it and you can mitigate the need for (likely extremely painful) updates that may have otherwise cropped up.
In my example, I have a watch, which is an indication a user wants notifications about events on a different item, say a group and an organization.
I see two ways to do this:
Have a groupwatch resource, with a groupwatch table, with id,user,group (group FK to group resource and table); and a orgwatch resource, with a orgwatch table, with id,user,organization (org FK to organization resource and table)
Have a generic watch resource, with a watch table, with id,user,type,typeid. type is one of group or organization, and typeid is the ID of the group or organization being watched.
Since both of them are watches, it seems a waste to have two different tables and resources to watch 2 different objects. It gets worse if I start watching 4, 5, 6, 20, 50 different types of resources.
On the other hand, a foreign key relationship appears impossible if I just have a generic typeid, which means that my database (if relational) and my framework (activerecord or anything else) cannot enforce it correctly.
How do I best implement this type of "association to different types of record/table for each record in my table"?
UPDATE:
Are my only choices for doing this:
separate tables/resources for each watch type, which enables the database to enforce relational integrity and do joins
single table for all watches, but I will have to enforce relational integrity and do joins at the app level?
If you add a new type of resource once every six months, you may want to define your tables in such a way that adding new resources involves changing data definitions. If you add a new resource type every week, you may want to make your data definitions stay the same when you add new types. There's a downside to either choice.
If you do choose to define table in such a way that the types are visible in the table structure, there are two patterns often used with type/subtype (aka class/subclass) situations.
One pattern has been called "single table inheritance". Put data about all the types in a single table, and leave some columns NULL wherever they do not apply.
Another pattern has been called "class table inheritance". Define one table for the superclass, with all the data that is common to all the types. Then define tables for each subtype (subclass) to contain class specific data. Make the primary key of the subtype tables a duplicate of the primary key in the supertype table, and also declare it as a foreign key that references the primary key of the supertype table. It's going to be up to the app, at insert time, to replicate the value of the primary key in the supertype table over in the subtype table.
I like Fowlers' treatment of these two patterns.
http://martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/classTableInheritance.html
http://www.martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/singleTableInheritance.html
This matter of sharing primary keys has a few beneficial effects.
First, it enforces the one-to-one nature of the ISa relationships.
Second, it makes it easy to find out whether a given entry belongs to a desired subtype, by just joining with the subtype table. You don't really need an extra type field.
Third, it speeds up the joins, because of the index that gets built when you declare a primary key.
If you want a structure that can adapt to new attributes without changing data definitions, you can look into E-A-V design. Be careful, though. Sometimes this results in data that is nearly impossible to use, because the logical structure is so obscure. I usually think of E-A-V as an anti-pattern for this reason, although there are some who really like the results they get from it.
I am about to embark on a project for work that is very outside my normal scope of duties. As a SQL DBA, my initial inclination was to approach the project using a SQL database but the more I learn about NoSQL, the more I believe that it might be the better option. I was hoping that I could use this question to describe the project at a high level to get some feedback on the pros and cons of using each option.
The project is relatively straightforward. I have a set of objects that have various attributes. Some of these attributes are common to all objects whereas some are common only to a subset of the objects. What I am tasked with building is a service where the user chooses a series of filters that are based on the attributes of an object and then is returned a list of objects that matches all^ of the filters. When the user selects a filter, he or she may be filtering on a common or subset attribute but that is abstracted on the front end.
^ There is a chance, depending on user feedback, that the list of objects may match only some of the filters and the quality of the match will be displayed to the user through a score that indicates how many of the criteria were matched.
After watching this talk by Martin Folwler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI_g07C_Q5I), it would seem that a document-style NoSQL database should suit my needs but given that I have no experience with this approach, it is also possible that I am missing something obvious.
Some additional information - The database will initially have about 5,000 objects with each object containing 10 to 50 attributes but the number of objects will definitely grow over time and the number of attributes could grow depending on user feedback. In addition, I am hoping to have the ability to make rapid changes to the product as I get user feedback so flexibility is very important.
Any feedback would be very much appreciated and I would be happy to provide more information if I have left anything critical out of my discussion. Thanks.
This problem can be solved in by using two separate pieces of technology. The first is to use a relatively well designed database schema with a modern RDBMS. By modeling the application using the usual principles of normalization, you'll get really good response out of storage for individual CRUD statements.
Searching this schema, as you've surmised, is going to be a nightmare at scale. Don't do it. Instead look into using Solr/Lucene as your full text search engine. Solr's support for dynamic fields means you can add new properties to your documents/objects on the fly and immediately have the ability to search inside your data if you have designed your Solr schema correctly.
I'm not an expert in NoSQL, so I will not be advocating it. However, I have few points that can help you address your questions regarding the relational database structure.
First thing that I see right away is, you are talking about inheritance (at least conceptually). Your objects inherit from each-other, thus you have additional attributes for derived objects. Say you are adding a new type of object, first thing you need to do (conceptually) is to find a base/super (parent) object type for it, that has subset of the attributes and you are adding on top of them (extending base object type).
Once you get used to thinking like said above, next thing is about inheritance mapping patterns for relational databases. I'll steal terms from Martin Fowler to describe it here.
You can hold inheritance chain in the database by following one of the 3 ways:
1 - Single table inheritance: Whole inheritance chain is in one table. So, all new types of objects go into the same table.
Advantages: your search query has only one table to search, and it must be faster than a join for example.
Disadvantages: table grows faster than with option 2 for example; you have to add a type column that says what type of object is the row; some rows have empty columns because they belong to other types of objects.
2 - Concrete table inheritance: Separate table for each new type of object.
Advantages: if search affects only one type, you search only one table at a time; each table grows slower than in option 1 for example.
Disadvantages: you need to use union of queries if searching several types at the same time.
3 - Class table inheritance: One table for the base type object with its attributes only, additional tables with additional attributes for each child object type. So, child tables refer to the base table with PK/FK relations.
Advantages: all types are present in one table so easy to search all together using common attributes.
Disadvantages: base table grows fast because it contains part of child tables too; you need to use join to search all types of objects with all attributes.
Which one to choose?
It's a trade-off obviously. If you expect to have many types of objects added, I would go with Concrete table inheritance that gives reasonable query and scaling options. Class table inheritance seems to be not very friendly with fast queries and scalability. Single table inheritance seems to work with small number of types better.
Your call, my friend!
May as well make this an answer. I should comment that I'm not strong in NoSQL, so I tend to lean towards SQL.
I'd do this as a three table set. You will see it referred to as entity value pair logic on the web...it's a way of handling multiple dynamic attributes for items. Lets say you have a bunch of products and each one has a few attributes.
Prd 1 - a,b,c
Prd 2 - a,d,e,f
Prd 3 - a,b,d,g
Prd 4 - a,c,d,e,f
So here are 4 products and 6 attributes...same theory will work for hundreds of products and thousands of attributes. Standard way of holding this in one table requires the product info along with 6 columns to store the data (in this setup at least one third of them are null). New attribute added means altering the table to add another column to it and coming up with a script to populate existing or just leaving it null for all existing. Not the most fun, can be a head ache.
The alternative to this is a name value pair setup. You want a 'header' table to hold the common values amoungst your products (like name, or price...things that all rpoducts always have). In our example above, you will notice that attribute 'a' is being used on each record...this does mean attribute a can be a part of the header table as well. We'll call the key column here 'header_id'.
Second table is a reference table that is simply going to store the attributes that can be assigned to each product and assign an ID to it. We'll call the table attribute with atrr_id for a key. Rather straight forwards, each attribute above will be one row.
Quick example:
attr_id, attribute_name, notes
1,b, the length of time the product takes to install
2,c, spare part required
etc...
It's just a list of all of your attributes and what that attribute means. In the future, you will be adding a row to this table to open up a new attribute for each header.
Final table is a mapping table that actually holds the info. You will have your product id, the attribute id, and then the value. Normally called the detail table:
prd1, b, 5 mins
prd1, c, needs spare jack
prd2, d, 'misc text'
prd3, b, 15 mins
See how the data is stored as product key, value label, value? Any future product added can have any combination of any attributes stored in this table. Adding new attributes is adding a new line to the attribute table and then populating the details table as needed.
I beleive there is a wiki for it too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-attribute-value_model
After this, it's simply figuring out the best methodology to pivot out your data (I'd recommend Postgres as an opensource db option here)
I hear a lot about subtyping tables when designing a database, and I'm fully aware of the theory behind them. However, I have never actually seen table subtyping in action. How can you create subtypes of tables? I am using MS Access, and I'm looking for a way of doing it in SQL as well as through the GUI (Access 2003).
Cheers!
An easy example would be to have a Person table with a primary key and some columns in that table. Now you can create another table called Student that has a foreign key to the person table (its supertype). Now the student table has some columns which the supertype doesn't have like GPA, Major, etc. But the name, last name and such would be in the parent table. You can always access the student name back in the Person table through the foreign key in the Student table.
Anyways, just remember the following:
The hierarchy depicts relationship between supertypes and subtypes
Supertypes has common attributes
Subtypes have uniques attributes
Subtypes of tables is a conceptual thing in EER diagrams. I haven't seen an RDBMS (excluding object-relational DBMSs) that supports it directly. They are usually implemented in either
A set of nullable columns for each property of the subtype in a single table
With a table for base type properties and some other tables with at most one row per base table that will contain subtype properties
The notion of table sub-types is useful when using an ORM mapper to produce class sub-type heirarchy that exactly models the domain.
A sub-type table will have both a Foreign Key back to its parent which is also the sub-types table's primary key.
Keep in mind that in designing a bound application, as with an Access application, subtypes impose a heavy cost in terms of joins.
For instance, if you have a supertype table with three subtype tables and you need to display all three in a single form at once (and you need to show not just the supertype date), you end up with a choice of using three outer joins and Nz(), or you need a UNION ALL of three mutually exclusive SELECT statements (one for each subtype). Neither of these will be editable.
I was going to paste some SQL from the first major app where I worked with super/subtype tables, but looking at it, the SQL is so complicated it would just confuse people. That's not so much because my app was complicated, but it's because the nature of the problem is complex -- presenting the full set of data to the user, both super- and subtypes, is by its very nature complex. My conclusion from working with it was that I'd have been better off with only one subtype table.
That's not to say it's not useful in some circumstances, just that Access's bound forms don't necessarily make it easy to present this data to the user.
I have a similar problem I've been working on.
While looking for a repeatable pattern, I wanted to make sure I didn't abandon referential integrity, which meant that I wouldn't use a (TABLE_NAME, PK_ID) solution.
I finally settled on:
Base Type Table: CUSTOMER
Sub Type Tables: PERSON, BUSINESS, GOVT_ENTITY
I put nullable PRERSON_ID, BUSINESS_ID and GOVT_ENTITY_ID fields in CUSTOMER, with foreign keys on each, and a check constraint that only one is not null. It's easy to add new sub types, just need to add the nullable foreign key and modify the check constraint.