Redundant relation: Is this a violation of database normalization? - database

Question

I have a table with products that I offer. For each product ever sold, an entry is created in the ProductInstance table. This refers to this instance of the product and contains information such as the next due date (if the product is to be billed monthly) and other information relevant to this instance (e.g. personal branding).
For understanding: The products are service contracts. The template of the contract is stored in the product table (e.g. "Monthly lawn mowing"). The product instance is then e.g. "Monthly lawn mowing in sample street" and contains information like the size of the garden or something specific to this instance of the service instead of the general product.
An invoice is created for a product instance either one time or recurring. An Invoice may consists of several entries. Each entry is represented by an element in the InvoiceEntry table. This is linked to the ProductInstance to create the reference to the invoice.
I want to extend the database with purchase orders. To do this, a record is created in the Order table. This contains a relation to the customer and e.g. the order date. The single products of the order are mapped by an OrderEntry. The initial invoice generated for the order is linked via the field "invoice_id" in the table order. The invoice items from the initial order are created per OrderEntry and create one InvoiceEntry each. However, I want the ProductInstance to be created only after the invoice is paid. Therefore the OrderEntry has a relation to the product and not only to the ProductInstance. Once the order has been created, the instance is created and linked to the OrderEntry.
I see the problem that the relation between Order and Invoice is doubled: once Order <-> Invoice and once Order <-> OrderEntry <-> InvoiceEntry <-> Invoice.
And for the Product: OrderEntry <-> Product and OrderEntry <-> ProductInstance <-> Product.
Model of the described database
My question is if this "duplicate" relation is problematic, or could cause problems later. One case that feels messy to me is, what should I do if I want to upgrade the ProductInstance later (to an other product [e.g. upgrade to bigger service])? The order would still show the old product_id but the instance would point to a new product_id.

Answer 1

This is a nice example of real-life messy requirements, where the 'pure' theory of normalisation has to be tempered by compromises. There's no 'slam-dunk right' approach; there's some definitely 'wrong' approaches -- your proposed schema exhibits some of those. I suspect there's not even a 'best' approach. Thank you for expanding the description of the business context -- especially for the ProductInstance table.
But still your description won't support legally required behaviour:
An invoice is created for a product instance either one time or recurring. An Invoice may consists of several entries. Each entry is represented by an element in the InvoiceEntry table.
... I want the ProductInstance to be created only after the invoice is paid.
An invoice represents an indebtedness from customer to supplier. It applies at one date only, not "recurring". (So leaving out the Invoice date has exactly got in the way of you "thinking about relations".) A recurring or cyclical billing arrangement would be represented by something like a 'contract' table, from which an Invoice is generated by some scheduled process.
Or ... your "recurring" means the invoice is paid once up-front for a recurring service(?) Still you need an Invoice date. The terms of service/its recurrence would be on the ProductInstance table.
I can see no merit in delaying recording the ProductInstance 'til after invoice payment. Where are you going to hold the terms of service in the meantime? If you're raising an invoice, your auditors/the statutory authorities will want you to provide records of what the indebtedness relates to. Create ProductInstance ab initio and put a status on it. (Or in the application look up the Invoice's paid status before actually providing the service.)
There's something else about Invoices you're currently failing to capture -- and that has also lead you to a wrong design: in general there is more making up the total $ value of an invoice than product lines, such as discounts applying to the invoice overall rather than particular products; delivery charges; installation costs or inspection/certification; taxes (local/State/Federal).
From your description perhaps the only one applying is taxes. ("in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.") And taxes are not specific to products/no product_instance_id is applicable on an InvoiceEntry.
For this reason, on ERP schemas in general, there is no foreign key declared from InvoiceEntry to Product/Instance. (In your case you might get away with product_instance_id being nullable, but yeuch.) There might be a system-generated XRef text column, which contains different content according to what the InvoiceEntry represents, but any referencing can't be declared to the schema. (There might be a 'fully normalised' way to represent that with an auxiliary linkage table, but maintaining that in step adds too much complexity to the application.)
I see the problem that the relation between Order and Invoice is doubled: once Order <-> Invoice and once Order <-> OrderEntry <-> InvoiceEntry <-> Invoice.
Again think about the business sequence of operations that generate these records: ordering happens as a prelude to invoicing. You can't put an invoice_id on Order, because you haven't created the Invoice yet. You might put the order_id on Invoice. But here you're again in the situation that not all Invoices arrive via Orders -- some might be cash sales/immediate delivery. (You could make order_id nullable, but yeuch.) For this reason on ERP schemas in general, there is no foreign key declared from Invoice to Order, etc, etc.
And the same thinking with OrderEntry <-> InvoiceEntry: your proposed schema has the sequencing wrong/the reference points the wrong way. (And not every InvoiceEntry will have corresponding OrderEntry.)
On OrderEntry, having all of (OrderEntry)id and product_id and product_instance_id seems to me to give you way too many opportunities for tangling it all up. Can an Order have multiple Entrys for the same product_id? -- why/how? Can it have multiple Entrys for the same product_instance_id? -- why/how? Can there be a product_instance_id which refers to a different product_id than OrderEntry.product_id? This is exactly the sort of risk for confusing entanglement that normalisation aims to remove/reduce.
The customer is ordering a ProductInstance: mowing a particular size of garden at a particular address, fortnightly on a Tuesday afternnon. So OrderEntry.product_instance_id is what you want; .product_id is wrong. So (again) you need to create ProductInstance at time of recording the Order. Furthermore I strongly suspect you don't need an id on OrderEntry; instead give it a compound key (order_entry_id, product_instance_id). [**]
[**] I see you're using 'eloquent'. I suspect this is requiring id on every table. So you're not even using a relational database, this is some sort of Object-Relational hybrid. Insisting on a dedicated single id as key on every table is toxic. It has lead schema designers astray every time I get called in to help -- as here. Please if you can at all avoid it, don't do that.