First, I'm aware of this question, and the suggestion (using GUID) doesn't apply in my situation.
I want simple UIDs so that my users can easily communicate this information over the phone :
Hello, I've got a problem with order
1584
as opposed to
hello, I've got a problem with order
4daz33-d4gerz384867-8234878-14
I want those to be unique (database wide) because I have a few different kind of 'objects' ... there are order IDs, and delivery IDs, and billing-IDs and since there's no one-to-one relationship between those, I have no way to guess what kind of object an ID is referring to.
With database-wide unique IDs, I can immediately tell what object my customer is referring to. My user can just input an ID in a search tool, and I save him the extra-click to further refine what is looking for.
My current idea is to use identity columns with different seeds 1, 2, 3, etc, and an increment value of 100.
This raises a few question though :
What if I eventually get more than 100 object types? granted I could use 1000 or 10000, but something that doesn't scale well "smells"
Is there a possibility the seed is "lost" (during a replication, a database problem, etc?)
more generally, are there other issues I should be aware of?
is it possible to use an non integer (I currently use bigints) as an identity columns, so that I can prefix the ID with something representing the object type? (for example a varchar column)
would it be a good idea to user a "master table" containing only an identity column, and maybe the object type, so that I can just insert a row in it whenever a need a new idea. I feel like it might be a bit overkill, and I'm afraid it would complexify all my insertion requests. Plus the fact that I won't be able to determine an object type without looking at the database
are there other clever ways to address my problem?
Why not use identities on all the tables, but any time you present it to the user, simply tack on a single char for the type? e.g. O1234 is an order, D123213 is a delivery, etc.? That way you don't have to engineer some crazy scheme...
Handle it at the user interface--add a prefix letter (or letters) onto the ID number when reporting it to the users. So o472 would be an order, b531 would be a bill, and so on. People are quite comfortable mixing letters and digits when giving "numbers" over the phone, and are more accurate than with straight digits.
You could use an autoincrement column to generate the unique id. Then have a computed column which takes the value of this column and prepends it with a fixed identifier that reflects the entity type, for example OR1542 and DL1542, would represent order #1542 and delivery #1542, respectively. Your prefix could be extended as much as you want and the format could be arranged to help distiguish between items with the same autoincrement value, say OR011542 and DL021542, with the prefixes being OR01 and DL02.
I would implement by defining a generic root table. For lack of a better name call it Entity. The Entity table should have at a minimum a single Identity column on it. You could also include other fields that are common accross all your objects or even meta data that tells you this row is an order for example.
Each of your actual Order, Delivery...tables will have a FK reference back to the Entity table. This will give you a single unique ID column
Using the seeds in my opinion is a bad idea, and one that could lead to problems.
Edit
Some of the problems you mentioned already. I also see this being a pain to track and ensure you setup all new entities correctly. Imagine a developer updating the system two years from now.
After I wrote this answer I had thought a but more about why your doing this, and I came to the same conclusion that Matt did.
MS's intentional programing project had a GUID-to-word system that gave pronounceable names from random ID's
Why not a simple Base36 representation of a bigint? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_36
We faced a similar problem on a project. We solved it by first creating a simple table that only has one row: a BIGINT set as auto-increment identity.
And we created an sproc that inserts a new row in that table, using default values and inside a transaction. It then stores the SCOPE_IDENTITY in a variable, rolls back the transaction and then returns the stored SCOPE_IDENTITY.
This gives us a unique ID inside the database without filling up a table.
If you want to know what kind of object the ID is referring to, I'd lose the transaction rollback and also store the type of object along side the ID. That way findout out what kind of object the Id is referring to is only one select (or inner join) away.
I use a high/low algorithm for this. I can't find a description for this online though. Must blog about it.
In my database, I have an ID table with an counter field. This is the high part. In my application, I have a counter that goes from 0 to 99. This is the low part. The generated key is 100 * high + low.
To get a key, I do the following
initially high = -1
initially low = 0
method GetNewKey()
begin
if high = -1 then
high = GetNewHighFromDatabase
newkey = 100 * high + low.
Inc low
If low = 100 then
low = 0
high = -1
return newKey
end
The real code is more complicated with locks etc but that is the general gist.
There are a number of ways of getting the high value from the database including auto inc keys, generators etc. The best way depends on the db you are using.
This algorithm gives simple keys while avoiding most the db hit of looking up a new key every time. In testing, I found it had similar performance to guids and vastly better performance than retrieving an auto inc key every time.
You could create a master UniqueObject table with your identity and a subtype field. Subtables (Orders, Users, etc.) would have a FK to UniqueObject. INSTEAD OF INSERT triggers should keep the pain to a minimum.
Maybe an itemType-year-week-orderNumberThisWeek variant?
o2009-22-93402
Such identifier can consist of several database column values and simply formatted into a form of an identifier by the software.
I had a similar situation with a project.
My solution: By default, users only see the first 7 characters of the GUID.
It's sufficiently random that collisions are extremely unlikely (1 in 268 million), and it's efficient for speaking and typing.
Internally, of course, I'm using the entire GUID.
Related
I'm in the process of creating unique customers ID's that is an alternative Id for external use.
In the process of adding a new column "cust_uid" with datatype INT for my unique ID's,
When I do an INSERT into this new column:
Insert Into Customers(cust_uid)
Select ABS(CHECKSUM(NEWID()))
I get a error:
Could not create an acceptable cursor. OLE DB provider "SQLNCLI" for linked server "SHQ2IIS1" returned message "Multiple-step OLE DB operation generated errors. Check each OLE DB status value, if available. No work was done.
I've check all data types on both tables and the only things that has changed is the new column in both tables.
The update is being done on one Big #$$ table...and for reasons above my pay grade, we would like to have new uid's that are different form the one's that we currently have "so users don't know how many accounts we actually have."
Is INT the correct datatype for ABS(CHECKSUM(NEWID())) ?
For a moment, forget your issue with what must be an attempt to insert into a linked server (though it is not obvious from your code that Customers must either be a synonym or you dumbed the statement down).
Ask yourself: why would you use random numbers for uniqueness? Random and unique may seem like similar concepts, but they're not.
I also see a lack of error handling (again, this may just be that you dumbed down your code to "help" us). Eventually you will get duplicates. You may want to read this tip and this blog post. Essentially, as you insert more and more "unique" values, the likelihood that you will get a collision increases. So rather than solve the issue with your solution, I think you should step back and re-consider the problem.
Why are you using random numbers instead of simpler concepts that - at least by default - help assure uniqueness in a much more predictable way, like IDENTITY or SEQUENCE? Is it to prevent people from guessing the next value, or being able to determine how many values you generate in a time period? If so, then pre-populate a table with a bunch of random values, and pull one off the stack when you need one, as I described here. If this isn't the crucial issue, then stop breaking your back and just use an existing methodology for generating unique - and not random - numbers.
The update is being done on one Big #$$ table...and for reasons above my pay grade, we would like to have new uid's that are different form the one's that we currently have "so users don't know how many accounts we actually have."
Pick a constant and XOR it into the existing identifier to get yourself a somewhat obfuscated number. XOR it again to get the original identifier back.
Again bad choice for generating a unique ID
But with that said this does not throw an error so I think something else is going on
declare #id int
set #id = ABS(CHECKSUM(NEWID()))
print #id
Your update that you don't want users to know how many accounts and custID is an identity should have been in the original problem statement.
I'm modifying some stored procedures that manage status changes when records are updated.
For example, if I have these two tables
Request(RequestID, StatusID)
Status(StatusID, StatusName)
I'm trying to determine the best to handle calling out the statuses in code.
Do I use StatusID or StatusName?
It's not guaranteed that StatusID will match between environments (DEV, PRE, PROD, etc).
Also, StatusName could be changed and I wouldn't want to have to alter code because I needed to change a StatusName.
I could create a 2nd unique column, which would sort of closely resemble StatusID.
I'd make sure this column was matched between regions, but that doesn't seem that clean either and sort of repetitive.
Can anyone suggest a cleaner, simpler way?
The difficulty of matching code to data can only partially be handled with a second column. When someone adds an item, what does this mean? If they re-use a known constant, what does it mean if you don't require this column to be unique?
Often times we will have user modifiable lookup tables, but they will have to be associated with a number of other flags indicating how to interpret the status - "IsTreatedAsExpired", "IsTreatedAsActive" or perhaps other tables which hold the statuses which are treated as certain things.
I think you really need to figure out the scope of what you want to allow with this table first. Because if you have a LOT of code references, you would be better off using a natural key which is in sync with your code on all installations. A possibility to handle this is to use negative numbers for unmovable codes (identity insert to add new unmovable codes) and then have your sequence only add positive ones. But again, this doesn't address the semantics of how your program would handle or use the user-entered extensions.
Again, it's hard to say without getting the full scope sorted out here.
From the information you've given, StatusID may have different values in different databases, presumably because your keys are generated automatically and are not specified by you. If so then obviously it's impossible to use StatusID consistently in your code anyway (without standardizing the values). Therefore the question becomes "is it acceptable/practical/desirable to hard-code StatusName values in my code?"
The obvious answer is yes, what's the alternative? If you have a certain status that represents 'ready' and you want to reference that in code then you must put something in your code that identifies the status unambiguously.
If you add a second key of some kind (as Carlos suggested) you still have the same basic problem that changing a natural key value is changing the identity of the status and therefore changes the meaning of your code. If you change the 'real' natural key (READY) without changing the second key (RDY) then your code will become more confusing and difficult to maintain.
If you do something more complex like extracting 'constants' or 'configuration parameters' into a configuration file or table or even writing a custom preprocessor to insert key values into your scripts at deployment time, you add lots of complexity for very little gain (unless you have other good reasons for doing it). I've seen this approach used, and it was a huge, unmaintainable mess.
In practice, StatusName is most likely to change because a) someone thinks another name would be 'more accurate' or 'look better', or b) you discover that it doesn't correctly represent your requirements. If you're forced to spend time on a) then just change the display name in your front end or reports and leave the database and code alone. If b) comes up then by definition your current data model and code are inaccurate and must be revised and possibly modified anyway. And when b) does happen, it often results in adding a new code, not changing the existing one (e.g. because someone defined a new process step that there is no existing code for).
And if you are open to changing your development and deployment practices there are other ways to look at this issue too, as others have suggested. Can you make your StatusID values the same everywhere? Technically it's possible, so what are the organizational reasons not to? Can you reduce the probability and impact of StatusName changes through change management and code reviews? Can you improve your requirements process to capture certain information more effectively?
Write a user defined function that accepts status name and gives out the status if wherever you are referring the status id
select * from resources where statusid = dbo.getStatusId("COMPLETED");
This would make sure that resolving the status id always happens within the function that you have defined
As a rule of thumb when you have id,value tables (Status, Result, Area, etc..) I usually add a third field that its the record's mnemonic value and always use that, neither the name or the id.
Now the mnemonic value is like a business key (well, it is a business key) in the sense that its a business value and does not depend on the database (for the id) or the way it displayed (the description) so for example for your status table you may have
StatusID,StatusName,StatusMnemo
1 ,COMPLETED ,COM
2 ,REJETED ,REJ
and so forth.
And in your queries you always join by statusId but you add a clause to join against the status table by StatusMnemo. This is a value that's independent across environments and remains constant.
Also in inserts, you always use statusid.
If you have statusID values that need special treatment then they should be the same across environments.
Why would you introduce a statusID that needs special treatment in Prod that has not gone thru Pre and Dev?
What I often do is start iden at 100 and use that for generic status that don't need special treatment.
Then DEV owns the space under 100 for special treatment using IDENTITY INSERT ON.
If deploy from DEV to PRE insert any records under 100.
How does activerecord assign an ID to a newly created record? The ID values seem to be all over the place. Sometimes they are sequential, but sometimes they seem to be some kind of a hash.
Is there a way to control the behavior?
Within a relational database you'll see that IDs are usually sequential. This happens to be an automatically incrementing field called id by default in these databases with Rails. This is the 99% case, meaning that 99% of the time you can expect to see it done this way. It's the sane way.
However, There are some cases in which the "id" field within the database may not be automatically incrementing and may instead be a string. In a database I am working with at the moment, the id field is called client_id, is a 6-character string such as "RAB001" and needs to be manually assigned by the code itself. This is due to a legacy system we are supporting and there's nothing we can do to fix that. It's just how it is.
In other databases such as Mongoid the ids are, once again, generated automatically. There's a difference here though: instead of them being automatically incrementing numbers they are a hash. In a Mongo database I happen to have handy, one of the object's _id fields (note the underscore) is this lovely, easy-to-understand1 hash: 4e22b5812f8b7d6f6d000001. This is automatically generated by Mongo and I don't really care what it is except for when I need to find an object and there's no other way of finding it by another unique value.
I would recommend sticking with an automatically generating ID system, be it something provided by the traditional database systems such as PostgreSQL or MySQL or something by Mongo.
Any system where you need to generate the primary key for a record manually needs to have a huge "HERE BE DRAGONS" label on it and should be handled like a case of nitroglycerin or similarly to this apt analogy. Avoid this system if you can.
1 I am being sarcastic here.
A lot of the applications I write make use of lookup tables, since that was just the way I was taught (normalization and such). The problem is that the queries I make are often more complicated because of this. They often look like this
get all posts that are still open
"SELECT * FROM posts WHERE status_id = (SELECT id FROM statuses WHERE name = 'open')"
Often times, the lookup tables themselves are very short. For instance, there may only be 3 or so different statuses. In this case, would it be okay to search for a certain type by using a constant or so in the application? Something like
get all posts that are still open
"SELECT * FROM posts WHERE status_id = ".Status::OPEN
Or, what if instead of using a foreign id, I set it as an enum and queried off of that?
Thanks.
The answer depends a little if you are limited to freeware such as PostGreSQL (not fully SQL compliant), or if you are thinking about SQL (ie. SQL compliant) and large databases.
In SQL compliant, Open Architecture databases, where there are many apps using one database, and many users using different report tools (not just the apps) to access the data, standards, normalisation, and open architecture requirements are important.
Despite the people who attempt to change the definition of "normalisation", etc. to suit their ever-changing purpose, Normalisation (the science) has not changed.
if you have data values such as {Open; Closed; etc} repeated in data tables, that is data duplication, a simple Normalisation error: if you those values change, you may have to update millions of rows, which is very limited design.
Such values should be Normalised into a Reference or Lookup table, with a short CHAR(2) PK:
O Open
C Closed
U [NotKnown]
The data values {Open;Closed;etc} are no longer duplicated in the millions of rows. It also saves space.
the second point is ease of change, if Closed were changed to Expired, again, one row needs to be changed, and that is reflected in the entire database; whereas in the un-normalised files, millions of rows need to be changed.
Adding new data values, eg. (H,HalfOpen) is then simply a matter of inserting one row.
in Open Architecture terms, the Lookup table is an ordinary table. It exists in the [SQL compliant] catalogue; as long as the FOREIGN KEY relation has been defined, the report tool can find that as well.
ENUM is a Non-SQL, do not use it. In SQL the "enum" is a Lookup table.
The next point relates to the meaningfulness of the key.
If the Key is meaningless to the user, fine, use an {INT;BIGINT;GUID;etc} or whatever is suitable; do not number them incrementally; allow "gaps".
But if the Key is meaningful to the user, do not use a meaningless number, use a meaningful Relational Key.
Now some people will get in to tangents regarding the permanence of PKs. That is a separate point. Yes, of course, always use a stable value for a PK (not "immutable", because no such thing exists, and a system-generated key does not provide row uniqueness).
{M,F} are unlikely to change
if you have used {0,1,2,4,6}, well don't change it, why would you want to. Those values were supposed to be meaningless, remember, only a meaningful Key need to be changed.
if you do use meaningful keys, use short alphabetic codes, that developers can readily understand (and infer the long description from). You will appreciate this only when you code SELECT and realise you do not have to JOIN every Lookup table. Power users too, appreciate it.
Since PKs are stable, particularly in Lookup tables, you can safely code:
WHERE status_code = 'O' -- Open
You do not have to JOIN the Lookup table and obtain the data value Open, as a developer, you are supposed to know what the Lookup PKs mean.
Last, if the database were large, and supported BI or DSS or OLAP functions in addition to OLTP (as properly Normalised databases can), then the Lookup table is actually a Dimension or Vector, in Dimension-Fact analyses. If it was not there, then it would have to be added in, to satisfy the requirements of that software, before such analyses can be mounted.
If you do that to your database from the outset, you will not have to upgrade it (and the code) later.
Your Example
SQL is a low-level language, thus it is cumbersome, especially when it comes to JOINs. That is what we have, so we need to just accept the encumbrance and deal with it. Your example code is fine. But simpler forms can do the same thing.
A report tool would generate:
SELECT p.*,
s.name
FROM posts p,
status s
WHERE p.status_id = s.status_id
AND p.status_id = 'O'
Another Exaple
For banking systems, where we use short codes which are meaningful (since they are meaningful, we do not change them with the seasons, we just add to them), given a Lookup table such as (carefully chosen, similar to ISO Country Codes):
Eq Equity
EqCS Equity/Common Share
OTC OverTheCounter
OF OTC/Future
Code such as this is common:
WHERE InstrumentTypeCode LIKE "Eq%"
And the users of the GUI would choose the value from a drop-down that displays
{Equity/Common Share;Over The Counter},
not {Eq;OTC;OF}, not {M;F;U}.
Without a lookup table, you can't do that, either in the apps, or in the report tool.
For look-up tables I use a sensible primary key -- usually just a CHAR(1) that makes sense in the domain with an additional Title (VARCHAR) field. This can maintain relationship enforcement while "keeping the SQL simple". The key to remember here is the look-up table does not "contain data". It contains identities. Some other identities might be time-zone names or assigned IOC country codes.
For instance gender:
ID Label
M Male
F Female
N Neutral
select * from people where gender = 'M'
Alternatively, an ORM could be used and manual SQL generation might never have to be done -- in this case the standard "int" surrogate key approach is fine because something else deals with it :-)
Happy coding.
Create a function for each lookup.
There is no easy way. You want performance and query simplicity. Ensure the following is maintained. You could create a SP_TestAppEnums to compare existing lookup values against the function and look for out of sync/zero returned.
CREATE FUNCTION [Enum_Post](#postname varchar(10))
RETURNS int
AS
BEGIN
DECLARE #postId int
SET #postId =
CASE #postname
WHEN 'Open' THEN 1
WHEN 'Closed' THEN 2
END
RETURN #postId
END
GO
/* Calling the function */
SELECT dbo.Enum_Post('Open')
SELECT dbo.Enum_Post('Closed')
Question is: do you need to include the lookup tables (domain tables 'round my neck of the woods) in your queries? Presumably, these sorts of tables are usually
pretty static in nature — the domain might get extended, but it probably won't get shortened.
their primary key values are pretty unlikely to change as well (e.g., the status_id for a status of 'open' is unlikely to suddenly get changed to something other than what it was created as).
If the above assumptions are correct, there's no real need to add all those extra tables to your joins just so your where clause can use a friend name instead of an id value. Just filter on status_id directly where you need to. I'd suspect the non-key attribute in the where clause ('name' in your example above) is more likely to get changes than the key attribute ('name' in your example above): you're more protected by referencing the desire key value(s) of the domain table in your join.
Domain tables serve
to limit the domain of the variable via a foreign key relationship,
to allow the domain to be expanded by adding data to the domain table,
to populate UI controls and the like with user-friendly information,
Naturally, you'd need to suck domain tables into your queries where you you actually required the non-key attributes from the domain table (e.g., descriptive name of the value).
YMMV: a lot depends on context and the nature of the problem space.
The answer is "whatever makes sense".
lookup tables involve joins or subqueries which are not always efficient. I make use of enums a lot to do this job. its efficient and fast
Where possible (and It is not always . . .), I use this rule of thumb: If I need to hard-code a value into my application (vs. let it remain a record in the database), and also store that vlue in my database, then something is amiss with my design. It's not ALWAYS true, but basically, whatever the value in question is, it either represents a piece of DATA, or a peice of PROGRAM LOGIC. It is a rare case that it is both.
NOT that you won't find yourself discovering which one it is halfway into the project. But as the others said above, there can be trade-offs either way. Just as we don't always acheive "perfect" normalization in a database design (for reason of performance, or simply because you CAN take thngs too far in pursuit of acedemic perfection . . .), we may make some concious choices about where we locate our "look-up" values.
Personally, though, I try to stand on my rule above. It is either DATA, or PROGRAM LOGIC, and rarely both. If it ends up as (or IN) a record in the databse, I try to keep it out of the Application code (except, of course, to retrieve it from the database . . .). If it is hardcoded in my application, I try to keep it out of my database.
In cases where I can't observe this rule, I DOCUMENT THE CODE with my reasoning, so three years later, some poor soul will be able to ficure out how it broke, if that happens.
The commenters have convinced me of the error of my ways. This answer and the discussion that went along with it, however, remain here for reference.
I think a constant is appropriate here, and a database table is not. As you design your application, you expect that table of statuses to never, ever change, since your application has hard-coded into it what those statuses mean, anyway. The point of a database is that the data within it will change. There are cases where the lines are fuzzy (e.g. "this data might change every few months or so…"), but this is not one of the fuzzy cases.
Statuses are a part of your application's logic; use constants to define them within the application. It's not only more strictly organized that way, but it will also allow your database interactions to be significantly speedier.
My friend is building a product to be used by different independent medical units.
The database stores a vast collection of measurements taken at different times, like the temperature, blood pressure, etc...
Let us assume these are held in a table called exams with columns temperature, pressure, etc... (as well as id, patient_id and timestamp). Most of the measurements are stored as floats, but some are of other types (strings, integers...)
While many of these measurements are handled by their product, it needs to allow the different medical units to record and process other custom measurements. A very nifty UI allows the administrator to edit these customs fields, specify their name, type, possible range of values, etc...
He is unsure as to how to store these custom fields.
He is leaning towards a separate table (say a table custom_exam_data with fields like exam_id, custom_field_id, float_value, string_value, ...)
I worry that this will make searching both more difficult to achieve and less efficient.
I am leaning towards modifying the exam table directly (while avoiding conflicts on column names with some scheme like prefixing all custom fields with an underscore or naming them custom_1, ...)
He worries about modifying the database dynamically and having different schemas for each medical unit.
Hopefully some people which more experience can weigh in on this issue.
Notes:
he is using Ruby on Rails but I think this question is pretty much framework agnostic, except from the fact that he is only looking for solutions in SQL databases only.
I simplified the problem a bit since the custom fields need to be available for more than one table, but I believe this doesn`t really impact the direction to take.
(added) A very generic reporting module will need to search, sort, generate stats, etc.. of this data, so it is required that this data be stored in the columns of the appropriate type
(added) User inputs will be filtered, for the standard fields as well as for the custom fields. For example, numbers will be checked within a given range (can't have a temperature of -12 or +444), etc... Thus, conversion to the appropriate SQL type is not a problem.
I've had to deal with this situation many times over the years, and I agree with your initial idea of modifying the DB tables directly, and using dynamic SQL to generate statements.
Creating string UserAttribute or Key/Value columns sounds appealing at first, but it leads to the inner-platform effect where you end up having to re-implement foreign keys, data types, constraints, transactions, validation, sorting, grouping, calculations, et al. inside your RDBMS. You may as well just use flat files and not SQL at all.
SQL Server provides INFORMATION_SCHEMA tables that let you create, query, and modify table schemas at runtime. This has full type checking, constraints, transactions, calculations, and everything you need already built-in, don't reinvent it.
It's strange that so many people come up with ad-hoc solutions for this when there's a well-documented pattern for it:
Entity-Attribute-Value (EAV) Model
Two alternatives are XML and Nested Sets. XML is easier to manage but generally slow. Nested Sets usually require some type of proprietary database extension to do without making a mess, like CLR types in SQL Server 2005+. They violate first-normal form, but are nevertheless the fastest-performing solution.
Microsoft Dynamics CRM achieves this by altering the database design each time a change is made. Nasty, I think.
I would say a better option would be to consider an attribute table. Even though these are often frowned upon, it gives you the flexibility you need, and you can always create views using dynamic SQL to pivot the data out again. Just make sure you always use LEFT JOINs and FKs when creating these views, so that the Query Optimizer can do its job better.
I have seen a use of your friend's idea in a commercial accounting package. The table was split into two, first contained fields solely defined by the system, second contained fields like USER_STRING1, USER_STRING2, USER_FLOAT1 etc. The tables were linked by identity value (when a record is inserted into the main table, a record with same identity is inserted into the second one). Each table that needed user fields was split like that.
Well, whenever I need to store some unknown type in a database field, I usually store it as String, serializing it as needed, and also store the type of the data.
This way, you can have any kind of data, working with any type of database.
I would be inclined to store the measurement in the database as a string (varchar) with another column identifying the measurement type. My reasoning is that it will presumably, come from the UI as a string and casting to any other datatype may introduce a corruption before the user input get's stored.
The downside is that when you go to filter result-sets by some measurement metric you will still have to perform a casting but at least the storage and persistence mechanism is not introducing corruption.
I can't tell you the best way but I can tell you how Drupal achieves a sort of schemaless structure while still using the standard RDBMSs available today.
The general idea is that there's a schema table with a list of fields. Each row really only has two columns, the 'table':String column and the 'column':String column. For each of these columns it actually defines a whole table with just an id and the actual data for that column.
The trick really is that when you are working with the data it's never more than one join away from the bundle table that lists all the possible columns so you end up not losing as much speed as you might otherwise think. This will also allow you to expand much farther than just a few medical companies unlike the custom_ prefix you were proposing.
MySQL is very fast at returning row data for short rows with few columns. In this way this scheme ends up fairly quick while allowing you lots of flexibility.
As to search, my suggestion would be to index the page content instead of the database content. Use Solr to parse through rendered pages and hold links to the actual page instead of trying to search through the database using clever SQL.
Define two new tables: custom_exam_schema and custom_exam_data.
custom_exam_data has an exam_id column, plus an additional column for every custom attribute.
custom_exam_schema would have a row to describe how to interpret each of the columns of the custom_exam_data table. It would have columns like name, type, minValue, maxValue, etc.
So, for example, to create a custom field to track the number of fingers a person has, you would add ('fingerCount', 'number', 0, 10) to custom_exam_schema and then add a column named fingerCount to the exam table.
Someone might say it's bad to change the database schema at run time, but I'd argue that configuring these custom fields is part of set up and won't happen too often. Still, this method lets you handle changes at any time and doesn't risk messing around with your core table schemas.
lets say that your friend's database has to store data values from multiple sources such as demogrphic values, diagnosis, interventions, physionomic values, physiologic exam values, hospitalisation values etc.
He might have as well to define choices, lets say his database is missing the race and the unit staff need the race of the patient (different races are more unlikely to get some diseases), they might want to use a drop down with several choices.
I would propose to use an other table that would have these choices or would you just use a "Custom_field_choices" table, which at some point is exactly the same but with a different name.
Considering that the database :
- needs to be flexible
- that data from multiple tables can be added and be customized
- that you might want to keep the integrity of the main structure of your database for distribution and uniformity purpose
- that data MUST have a limit and alarms and warnings
- that data must have units ( 10 kg or 10 pounds) ?
- that data can have a selection of choices
- that data can be with different rights (from simple user to admin)
- that these data might be needed to generate reports without modifying the code (automation)
- that these data might be needed to make cross reference analysis within the system without modifying the code
the custom table would be my solution, modifying each table would end up being too risky.
I would store those custom fields in a table where each record ( dataType, dataValue, dataUnit ) would use in one row. So there would be a relation oneToMany from one sample to the data. You can also create a table to record all the kind of cutsom types you would use. For example:
create table DataType
(
id int primary key,
name varchar(100) not null unique
description text,
uri varchar(255) //<-- can be used for an ONTOLOGY
)
create table DataRecord
(
id int primary key,
sample_id int not null,//<-- reference to the sample
dataType_id int not null, //<-- references DataType
value varchar(100),//<-- the value as string
unit varchar(50)//<-- g, mg/ml, etc... but it could also be a link to a table describing the units just like DataType
)