A colleague is adding a bit mask to all our database tables. In theory this is so we can track certain properties of each row across the entire system. For example...
Is the row shipped with the system or added by the client once they've started using the system
Has the row been deleted from the table (soft deletes)
Is the row a default value within a set of rows
Is this a good idea? Are there other uses where this approach would be beneficial?
My preference is these properties are obviously important, and having a dedicated column for each property is justified to make what is happening clearer to fellow developers.
Not really, no.
You can only store bits in it, and only so many. So, seems to me like it's asking for a lot of application-level headaches later on keeping track of what each one means and potential abuse later on because "hey they're everywhere". Is every bitmask on every table going to use the same definition for each bit? Will it be different on each table? What happens when you run out of bits? Add another?
There are lots of potential things you could do with it, but it begs the question "why do it that way instead of identifying what we will use those bits for right now and just make them proper columns?" You don't really circumvent the possibility of schema changes this way anyway, so it seems like it's trying to solve a problem that you can't really "solve" and especially not with bitmasks.
Each of the things you mentioned can be (and should be) solved with real columns on the database, and those are far more self-documenting than "bit 5 of the BitMaskOptions field".
A dedicated column is is better, because it's undoubtedly more obvious and less error-prone. SQL Server already stores BIT columns efficiently, so performance is not an issue.
The only argument I could see for a bitmask is not having to change the DB schema every time you add a new flag, but really, if you're adding new flags that often then something is not right.
No, it is not even remotely a good idea IMO. Each column should represent a single concept and value. Bit masks have all kinds of performance and maintenance problems. How do new developers understand what each of the bits mean? How do you prevent someone from accidentally mixing the meaning of the order of the bits?
It would be better to have a many-to-many relationship or separate columns rather than a bit mask. You will be able to index on it, enable referential integrity (depending on approach), easily add new items and change the order of the results to fit different reports and so on.
Related
I'm wondering if using a trigger to set the updated date column of a table (or all tables) is considered a better practice versus having the application explicitly set it. I realize this could devolve into a debate over preferences and design patterns, so in an effort to parameterize the question a bit - I'd like to get a take from a best practices stand point. Taking separation of concerns into consideration (keeping business logic out of the database type of thing) as well as making sure database columns have what is intended within them (actually updating the "last modified date" column), I'm more inclined to let the database handle this via a trigger. That said, I also tend to shy away from triggers since they tend to hide the consequences of an action in a database. I'm hoping that the many smarter people here on SO have a more concrete thought than mine.
It rather depends on what you want to do. If you want to know when any column has changed, then a trigger would be the most suitable. It would be a bit of a drag to have to change code every time you added a new column.
However, if you were only interested in certain columns, you might simply wish to handle this in the update SQL.
There are of course shades in between - you could choose to handle only certain columns in the trigger.
Another consideration is how many bits of code can update a given table. You might have some all singing all dancing update code, but it is perfectly possible this could be spread out.
One word of caution - triggers tend to be the last place you consider when tracking an issue. For this sake (and this is a personal preference), I tend to avoid them unless they're absolutely necessary.
Apart from the tuning, the issue with triggers is that if they are disabled, you will never know this, and transactions will be committed. This could cause a major problem if the update-date is important to your business logic (for instance for sync processes or for finance). I prefer to explicitly handle all business related data within the procedures. And use triggers mainly for auditing.
Example case:
We're building a renting service, using SQL Server. Information about items that can be rented is stored in a table. Each item has a state that can be either "Available", "Rented" or "Broken". The different states reside in a lookup table.
ItemState table:
id name
1 'Available'
2 'Rented'
3 'Broken'
Adding to this we have a business rule which states that whenever an item is returned, it's state is changed from "Rented" to "Available".
This could be done with a an update statement like "update Items set state=1 where id=#itemid". In application code we might have an enum that maps to the ItemState id:s. However, these contain hard coded values that could lead to maintenance issues later on. Say if a developer were to change the set of states but forgot to fix the related business logic layer...
What good methods or alternate designs are there for dealing with this type of design issues?
Links to related articles are also appreciated in addition to direct answers.
In my experience this is a case where you actually have to hardcode, preferably by using an Enum which integer values match the id's of your lookup tables. I can't see nothing wrong with saying that "1" is always "Available" and so forth.
Most systems that I've seen hard code the lookup table values and live with it. That's because, in practice, code tables rarely change as much as you think they might. And if they ever do change, you generally need to re-compile any programs that rely on that DDL anyway.
That said, if you want to make the code maintainable (a laudable goal), the best approach would be to externalize the values into a properties file. Then you can edit this file later without having to re-code your entire app.
The limiting factor here is that your app depends for its own internal state on the value you get from the lookup table, so that implies a certain amount of coupling.
For lookups where the app doesn't rely on that code, (for instance, if your code table stores a list of two-letter state codes for use in an address drop-down), then you can lazily load the codes into an object and access them only when needed. But that won't work for what you're doing.
When you have your lookup tables as well as enums defined in the code, then you always have an issue with keeping them in sync. There is not much that can be done here. Both live effectively in two different worlds and are generally unaware of each other.
You may wish to reject using lookup tables and only let your business logic operate these values. In that case you miss the options of relying on referential integrity to back you ap on the data integrity.
The other option is to build up your application in that way that you never need these values in your code. That means moving part of your business logic to the database layer, meaning, putting them in stored procedures and triggers. This will also have the benefit of being agnostic to the client. Anyone can invoke SPs and get assured the data will be kept in the consistence state, consistent with your business logic rules as well.
You'll need to have some predefined value that never changes, be it an integer, a string or something else.
In your case, the numerical value of the state is the state's surrogate PRIMARY KEY which should never change in a well-designed database.
If you're concerned about the consistency, use a CHAR code: A, R or B.
However, you should stick to it as well as to a numerical code so that A always means Available etc.
You database structure should be documented as well as the code is.
The answer depends entirely on the language you're using: solutions for this are not the same in Java, PHP, Smalltalk or even Assembler...
But let me tell you something: while it's true hard coded values are not a great thing, there are times in which you do need them. And this one is pretty much one of them: you need to declare in your code your current knowledge of the business logic, which includes these hard coded states.
So, in this particular case, I would hard code those values.
Don't overdesign it. Before trying to come up with a solution to this problem, you need to figure out if it's even a problem. Can you think of any legit hypothetical scenario where you would change the values in the itemState table? Not just "What if someone changes this table?" but "Someone wants to change this table in X way for Y reason, what effect would that have?". You need to stay realistic.
New state? you add a row, but it doesn't affect the existing ones.
Removing a state? You have to remove the references to it in code anyway.
Changing the id of a state? There is no legit reason to do that.
Changing the name of a state? There is no legit reason to do that.
So there really should be no reason to worry about this. But if you must have this cleanly maintainable in the case of irrational people who randomly decide to change Available to 2 because it just fits their Feng Shui better, make sure all tables are generated via a script which reads these values from a configuration file, and then make sure all code reads constants from that same configuration file. Then you have one definition location and any time you want to change the value you modify that configuration file instead of the DB/code.
I think this is a common problem and a valid concern, that's why I googled and found this article in the first place.
What about creating a public static class to hold all the lookup values, but instead of hard-coding, we initialize these values when the application is loaded and use names to refer them?
In my application, we tried this, it worked. Also you can do some checking, e.g. the number of different possible values of a lookup in code should be the same as in db, if it's not, log/email/etc. But I don't want to manually code this for the status of 40+ biz entities.
Moreover, this can be part of the bigger problem of OR mapping. We're exposed with too much details of the persistence layer, and thus we have to take care of it. With technologies like Entity Framework, we don't need to worry about the "sync" part because it's automated, am I right?
Thanks!
I've used a similar method to what you're describing - a table in the database with values and descriptions (useful for reporting, etc.) and an enum in code. I've handled the synchronization with a comment in code saying something like "these values are taken from table X in database ABC" so that the programmer knows the database needs to be updated. To prevent changes from the database side without the corresponding changes in code I set permissions on the table so that only certain people (who hopefully remember they need to change the code as well) have access.
The values have to be hard-coded, which effectively means that they can't be changed in the database, which means that storing them in the database is redundant.
Therefore, hard-code them and don't have a lookup table in the database. Instead store the items state directly in the items table.
You can structure your database so that your application doesn't actually have to care about the codes themselves, but rather the business rules behind them.
I have done both of the following:
Do one or more of your codes have a certain characteristic, such as IsAvailable, that the application cares about? If so, add it as a flag column to the code table, where those that match are set to true (or your DB's equivalent), and those that don't are set to false.
Do you need to use a specific, single code under a certain condition? You can create a singleton table, named something like EnvironmentSettings, with a column such as ItemStateIdOnReturn that's a foreign key to the ItemState table.
If I wanted to avoid declaring an enum in the application, I would use #2 to address the example in the question.
Whether you take this approach depends on your application's priorities. This type of structure comes at the cost of additional development and lookup overhead. Plus, if every individual code comes with its own business rules, then it's not practical to create one new column per required code.
But, it may be worthwhile if you don't want to worry about synchronizing your application with the contents of a code table.
I'd like to hear some opinions or discussion on a matter of database design. Me and my colleagues are developing a complex application in finance industry that is being installed in several countries.
Our contractors wanted us to keep a single application for all the countries so we naturally face the difficulties with different workflows in every one of them and try to make the application adjustable to satisfy various needs.
The issue I've encountered today was a request from the head of the IT department from the contractors side that we keep the database model in terms of tables and columns they consist of.
For examlpe, we got a table with different risks and we needed to add a flag column IsSomething (BIT NOT NULL ...). It fully qualifies to exists within the risk table according to the third normal form, no transitive dependency to the key, a non key value ...
BUT, the guy said that he wants to keep the tables as they are so we had to make a new table "riskinfo" and link the data 1:1 to the new column.
What is your opinion ?
We add columns to our tables that are referenced by a variety of apps all the time.
So long as the applications specifically reference the columns they want to use and you make sure the new fields are either nullable or have a sensible default defined so it doesn't interfere with inserts I don't see any real problem.
That said, if an app does a select * then proceeds to reference the columns by index rather than name you could produce issues in existing code. Personally I have confidence that nothing referencing our database does this because of our coding conventions (That and I suspect the code review process would lynch someone who tried it :P), but if you're not certain then there is at least some small risk to such a change.
In your actual scenario I'd go back to the contractor and give your reasons you don't think the change will cause any problems and ask the rationale behind their choice. Maybe they have some application-specific wisdom behind their suggestion, maybe just paranoia from dealing with other companies that change the database structure in ways that aren't backwards-compatible, or maybe it's just a policy at their company that got rubber-stamped long ago and nobody's challenged. Till you ask you never know.
This question is indeed subjective like what Binary Worrier commented. I do not have an answer nor any suggestion. Just sharing my 2 cents.
Do you know the rationale for those decisions? Sometimes good designs are compromised for the sake of not breaking currently working applications or simply for the fact that too much has been done based on the previous one. It could also be many other non-technical reasons.
Very often, the programming community is unreasonably concerned about the ripple effect that results from redefining tables. Usually, this is a result of failure to understand data independence, and failure to guard the data independence of their operations on the data. Occasionally, the original database designer is at fault.
Most object oriented programmers understand encapsulation better than I do. But these same experts typically don't understand squat about data independence. And anyone who has learned how to operate on an SQL database, but never learned the concept of data independence is dangerously ignorant. The superficial aspects of data independence can be learned in about five minutes. But to really learn it takes time and effort.
Other responders have mentioned queries that use "select *". A select with a wildcard is more data dependent than the same select that lists the names of all the columns in the table. This is just one example among dozens.
The thing is, both data independence and encapsulation pursue the same goal: containing the unintended consequences of a change in the model.
Here's how to keep your IT chief happy. Define a new table with a new name that contains all the columns from the old table, and also all the additional columns that are now necessary. Create a view, with the same name as the old table, that contains precisely the same columns, and in the same order, that the old table had. Typically, this view will show all the rows in the old table, and the old PK will still guarantee uniqueness.
Once in a while, this will fail to meet all of the IT chief's needs. And if the IT chief is really saying "I don't understand databases; so don't change anything" then you are up the creek until the IT chief changes or gets changed.
Say I offer user to check off languages she speaks and store it in a db. Important side note, I will not search db for any of those values, as I will have some separate search engine for search.
Now, the obvious way of storing these values is to create a table like
UserLanguages
(
UserID nvarchar(50),
LookupLanguageID int
)
but the site will be high load and we are trying to eliminate any overhead where possible, so in order to avoid joins with main member table when showing results on UI, I was thinking of storing languages for a user in the main table, having them comma separated, like "12,34,65"
Again, I don't search for them so I don't worry about having to do fulltext index on that column.
I don't really see any problems with this solution, but am I overlooking anything?
Thanks,
Andrey
Don't.
You don't search for them now
Data is useless to anything but this one situation
No data integrity (eg no FK)
You still have to change to "English,German" etc for display
"Give me all users who speak x" = FAIL
The list is actually a presentation issue
It's your system, though, and I look forward to answering the inevitable "help" questions later...
You might not be missing anything now, but when you're requirements change you might regret that decision. You should store it normalized like your first instinct suggested. That's the correct approach.
What you're suggesting is a classic premature optimization. You don't know yet whether that join will be a bottleneck, and so you don't know whether you're actually buying any performance improvement. Wait until you can profile the thing, and then you'll know whether that piece needs to be optimized.
If it does, I would consider a materialized view, or some other approach that pre-computes the answer using the normalized data to a cache that is not considered the book of record.
More generally, there are a lot of possible optimizations that could be done, if necessary, without compromising your design in the way you suggest.
This type of storage has almost ALWAYS come back to haunt me. For one, you are not even in first normal form. For another, some manager or the other will definitely come back and say.. "hey, now that we store this, can you write me a report on... "
I would suggest going with a normalized design. Put it in a separate table.
Problems:
You lose join capability (obviously).
You have to reparse the list on each page load / post back. Which results in more code client side.
You lose all pretenses of trying to keep database integrity. Just imagine if you decide to REMOVE a language later on... What's the sql going to be to fix all of your user profiles?
Assuming your various profile options are stored in a lookup table in the DB, you still have to run "30 queries" per profile page. If they aren't then you have to code deploy for each little change. bad, very bad.
Basing a design decision on something that "won't happen" is an absolute recipe for failure. Sure, the business people said they won't ever do that... Until they think of a reason they absolutely must do it. Today. Which will be promptly after you finish coding this.
As I stated in a comment, 30 queries for a low use page is nothing. Don't sweat it, and definitely don't optimize unless you know for darn sure it's necessary. Guess how many queries SO does for it's profile page?
I generally stay away at the solution you described, you asking for troubles when you store relational data in such fashion.
As alternative solution:
You could store as one bitmasked integer, for example:
0 - No selection
1 - English
2 - Spanish
4 - German
8 - French
16 - Russian
--and so on powers of 2
So if someone selected English and Russian the value would be 17, and you could easily query the values with Bitwise operators.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
EDIT: Apparently the context of my observation has been misconstrued by some - and hence the downvotes. So I will clarify.
Denormalizing your model to make things easier and/or 'more performant' - such as creating concatenated columns to represent business information (as in the OP case) - is what I refer to as a "premature optimization".
While there may be some extreme edge cases where there is no other way to get the necessary performance necessary for a particular problem domain - one should rarely assume this is the case. In general, such premature optimizations cause long-term grief because they are hard to undo - changing your data model once it is in production takes a lot more effort than when it initially deployed.
When designing a database, developers (and DBAs) should apply standard practices like normalization to ensure that their data model expresses the business information being collected and managed. I don't believe that proper use of data normalization is an "optimization" - it is a necessary practice. In my opinion, data modelers should always be on the lookout for models that could be restructured to (at least) third normal form (3NF).
If you're not querying against them, you don't lose anything by storing them in a form like your initial plan.
If you are, then storing them in the comma-delimited format will come back to haunt you, and I doubt that any speed savings would be significant, especially when you factor in the work required to translate them back.
You seem to be extremely worried about adding in a few extra lookup table joins. In my experience, the time it takes to actually transmit the HTML response and have the browser render it far exceed a few extra table joins. Especially if you are using indexes for your primary and foreign keys (as you should be). It's like you are planning a multi-day cross-country trip and you are worried about 1 extra 10 minute bathroom stop.
The lack of long-term flexibility and data integrity are not worth it for such a small optimization (which may not be necessary or even noticeable).
Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
As stated very well in the above few posts.
If you want a contrary view to this debate, look at wordpress. Tables are chocked full of delimited data, and it's a great, simple platform.
I've shown up at a new job and discovered database which is in dire need of some help. There are many many things wrong with it, including
No foreign keys...anywhere. They're faked by using ints and managing the relationship in code.
Practically every field can be NULL, which isn't really true
Naming conventions for tables and columns are practically non-existent
Varchars which are storing concatenated strings of relational information
Folks can argue, "It works", which it is. But moving forward, it's a total pain to manage all of this with code and opens us up to bugs IMO. Basically, the DB is being used as a flat file since it's not doing a whole lot of work.
I want to fix this. The issues I see now are:
We have a lot of data (migration, possibly tricky)
All of the DB logic is in code (with migration comes big code changes)
I'm also tempted to do something "radical" like moving to a schema-free DB.
What are some good strategies when faced with an existing DB built upon a poorly designed schema?
Enforce Foreign Keys: If a relationship exists in the domain, then it should have a Foreign Key.
Renaming existing tables/columns is fraught with danger, especially if there are many systems accessing the Database directly. Gotchas include tasks that run only periodically; these are often missed.
Of Interest: Scott Ambler's article: Introduction To Database Refactoring
and Catalog of Database Refactorings
Views are commonly used to transition between changing data models because of the encapsulation. A view looks like a table, but does not exist as a finite object in the database - you can change what column is being returned for a given column alias as desired. This allows you to setup your codebase to use a view, so you can move from the old table structure to the new one without the application needing to be updated. But it means the view has to return the data in the existing format. For example - your current data model has:
SELECT t.column --a list of concatenated strings, assuming comma separated
FROM TABLE t
...so the first version of the view would be the query above, but once you created the new table that uses 3NF, the query for the view would use:
SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(t.column SEPARATOR ',')
FROM NEW_TABLE t
...and the application code would never know that anything changed.
The problem with MySQL is that the view support is limited - you can't use variables within it, nor can they have subqueries.
The reality to the changes you wish to make is effectively rewriting the application from the ground up. Moving logic from the codebase into the data model will drastically change how the application gets the data. Model-View-Controller (MVC) is ideal to implement with changes like these, to minimize the cost of future changes like these.
I'd say leave it alone until you really understand it. Then make sure you don't start with one of the Things You Should Never Do.
Read Scott Ambler's book on Refactoring Databases. It covers a good many techniques for how to go about improving a database - including the transitional measures needed to allow both old and new programs to work with the changing design.
Create a completely new schema and make sure that it is fully normalized and contains any unique, check and not null constraints etc that are required and that appropriate data types are used.
Prepopulate each table that fills the parent role in a foreign key relationship with a single 'Unknown' record.
Create an ETL (Extract Transform Load) process (I can recommend SSIS (SQL Server Integration Services) but there are plenty of others) that you can use to refill the new schema from the existing one on a regular basis. Use the 'Unknown' record as the parent of any orphaned records - there will be plenty ;). You will need to put some thought into how you will consolidate duplicate records - this will probably need to be on a case by case basis.
Use as many iterations as are necessary to refine your new schema (ensure that the ETL Process is maintained and run regularly).
Create views over the new schema that match the existing schema as closely as possible.
Incrementally modify any clients to use the new schema making temporary use of the views where necessary. You should be able to gradually turn off parts of the ETL process and eventually disable it completely.
First see how bad the code is related to the DB if it is all mixed in no DAO layer you shouldn't think about a rewrite but if there is a DAO layer then it would be time to rewrite that layer and DB along with it. If possible make the migration tool based on using the two DAOs.
But my guess is there is no DAO so you need to find what areas of the code you are going to be changing and what parts of the DB that relates to hopefully you can cut it up into smaller parts that can be updated as you maintain. Biggest deal is to get FKs in there and start checking for proper indexes there is a good chance they aren't being done correctly.
I wouldn't worry too much about naming until the rest of the db is under control. As for the NULLs if the program chokes on a value being NULL don't let it be NULL but if the program can handle it I wouldn't worry about it at this point in the future if it is doing a default value move that to the DB but that is way down the line from the sound of things.
Do something about the Varchars sooner rather then later. If anything make that the first pure background fix to the program.
The other thing to do is estimate the effort of each areas change and then add that price to the cost of new development on that section of code. That way you can fix the parts as you add new features.