I have homework from my teacher and he say that which one is better (relation modeling or normalization) to make model of data in a hospital ? and why?
I am assuming by relation modelling you mean dimensional modelling (usually associated with Kimball).
Normalisation is associated with 3NF form or Inmon style.
You have to ask yourself what is the data model for? You cant design anything unless you know the purpose of it or the requirements for the 'product' you build/design.
If you use the model as a backend database for the hospital administration application, then use Normalised data model.
If you want to use the model for analytics then you use the Kimball or denormalised model.
Related
I am working on a practice questions for ERD, and I was wondering what the correct approach is for modelling either or relationships.
For example, in a Taekwondo school, you will have customer accounts, which will represent and pay for one or many students. The account is owned by either a parent, or a the student himself. Therefore the account owner is either a parent or a student. What is the best way to represent a relationship like this?
Here is what I came up with, but I am unsure if this conforms to best practice:
1 Clarification
Representing an either-or relationship in Crows foot ERD
The diagram you have is a good start. Note:
that is not ERD. That is way more detail than an ERD can handle
ERD does not have a Crows Foot, that is IEEE notation
Ultimately, you need a data model that has the detail required for an implementation (way more than ERD). That is why I said your diagram is a good start, it is moving in that direction. However, we have a Standard for Relational Data Modelling: IDEF1X, the Standard for modelling Relational databases since 1993, available since 1984 before it was elevated to a standard.
Evidently both Dr E F Codd's Relational Model, and the diagrammatic method for modelling Relational databases is suppressed.
The relationship symbol, especially the cardinality, in IEEE notation is better (more easily understood) than IDEF1X, therefore most people use that. All data modelling tools, such as ERwin, implement IDEF1X, and allow either IDEF1X or IEEE notation for relationships.
2 Request
The diagram as intended is illegal. Why ? Because you have one relationship going "out" of Person, to two tables. Not possible. You are asking how to represent such a relationship in a data model (not possible in ERD). The answer is, that is an OR Gate is logical terms, a Subtype in Relational terms.
Please inspect these answers for overview and detail. Follow the links for implementation details and code:
How can I relate a primary key field to multiple tables?
Structuring database relationships for tracking different variations of app settings
How do I get around this relational database design smell?
Subtypes can be:
Exclusive (the Basetype must be one of the Subtypes), or
Non-Exclusive (the Basetype must be any [more than one] of the Subtypes).
From Role it appears to be Exclusive. What you call Role is a Discriminator in IDEF1X.
That is best practice for Relational databases.
Relational Data Model
This is best practice for for data models (this level of detail shows attribute name only).
Of course, all my data models are rendered in IDEF1X.
My IDEF1X Introduction is essential reading for beginners.
ParentId, StudentId, OwnerId are all RoleNames (Relational term)of PersonId. This makes the context of the FK explicit.
3 Correction
but I am unsure if this conforms to best practice
Since you are concerned, there is one other issue. There is a mistake in your model, it is one of the common errors that happen when one stamps id on every file. Such a practice cripples the modelling exercise, and makes it prone to various errors. (I understand that you are taught that crippling method.)
Since a Person can have 0-or-1 Account, and the Person PK (which is unique to a Person), is a FK in Account, it can be the PK in Account.
AccountId is not necessary: it is 100% redundant, one additional field and one additional index, that can be eliminated.
I'm new to data modelling and have started following tutorials to learn more.
I am trying to create a model for a hypothetical scenario and am struggling to validate what I have created to see if it is what would be considered a correct data model.
Essentially all im trying to do is correctly store data in a normalised form. In my scenario there are 3 types of people and each share some attributes and have one set of contact details each.
Does the below data model look feasible?
The relationship between person and one of defendant, magistrate, or staff-member is a case of the class/subclass pattern. There are two common ways of modeling this pattern in relational tables.
One way is called "Class Table Inheritance". You can find out more by visiting this tag: class-table-inheritance or by searching the web for Martin Fowler's treatment of the same subject. Your design resembles this design.
Another way is called "Single Table Inheritance", which you can also research the same way. single-table-inheritance. It's simpler, and works ok in some cases. You deal with fewer joins, but you deal with more NULLS.
Many people who go for class table inheritance also apply a technique called "Shared Primary Key". shared-primary-key. Using this technique, Defendant, Magistrate, and Staff_Member would each use a copy of person_id as the primary key. This primary key also functions as a foreign key. Shared primary key enforces the one-to-one nature of the IS-A relationships that exist in this case.
If you want to go further in data modeling, you might want to learn ER modeling as a distinct data model from the relational model. What you've done here is essentially to use ER diagramming to diagram a relational model. There's nothing wrong with that, but it obscures a whole new field of study, generally called conceptual data modeling.
If you generate an ER model at the conceptual level, you don't attempt to implement it in terms of tables. There is a diagramming convention in ER that goes under the name "generalization/specialization" that allows you to depict a class/subclass situation, while remaining silent on how it's going to be implemented.
Conceptual data models have an area of usefulness, in addition to relational data modeling. What makes conceptual data models useful is precisely the fact that they present the information requirements without stating how those requirements are going to be met.
Once you are proficient at creating conceptual data models, it's not hard to convert one of them to a relational model.
This may be more than you bargained for, but since you are taking on learning modeling, I thought I'd survey some of the field for you.
I'm doing a work about database, and now I need to show three different images, one image with the conceptual model, other with logical model and other with physical model of a database.
But Im here with some difficults to understand which image represents each model.
I'm looking for reliable information about this, but I find different answers and I'm a bit confused.
So I came here to see if you can help me.
I have below my three images, do you think I have the correct title for each image?
Conceptual model:
In conceptual model, I think that I neeed to put my tables with atributes but without relationships.
Logical Model:
In logical model, I think I need to put my tables with atributes, but now with my relationships.
Physical Model:
In physical model, I think I need to put my tables with atributes, but now with my relationships and also with foreign keys
A Conceptual Model (CM) is an informal representation of the business represented in a manner that is understood by users. It will consist of classes of entities with attributes and the business rules regarding these. It is often presented as Entity-Relationship Diagrams.
A Logical Model (LM) formalizes the CM into data structures and integrity constraints. it should include all the data structures and integrity constraints for the data (this is all constraints, not just that subset of constraints that are easily defined in most available database management systems). It is database management system agnostic.
The LM may be presented as a Relational Data Model (RDM). In which case all the data structures and integrity constraints will be formally represented only using mathematical relations.
A Physical Model (PM) is a representation of the LM on specific hardware and database management system. It may consist of information such as storage sizing and placement; access methods such as indexing; and distribution such as clustering or partitioning.
Using these definitions I would say that all you diagrams are versions of Conceptual Models; as they do not include all the integrity constraints for the data being managed and do not include any information regarding an implementation on specific hardware or database management system.
The conceptual/logical/physical layers have changed somewhat over the years, and also vary according to different schools of thought. The way I learned it, back in the 1980s was this:
The conceptual model summarizes the semantics of the data with reference to the subject matter. It is not bound to a relational implementation. The implementation could be in some sort of prerelational database, or even in classical files of records. You have entities, relationships, attributes, and domains. You also have business rules. That's about it. Like your summary, it's primarily for communication with users and other stakeholders. The idea is to pin down the requirements during the analysis phase.
The logical model is a preliminary design. It's bound to the relational model, but not to a specific DBMS. You have relations, tuples, attributes, and constraints. Relationships are implemented as foreign keys, sometimes requiring junction relations. I tended to use the terminology of tables, rows, and columns, instead of relations, tuples, and attributes, but that's mostly nomenclature. Normalization is relevant here.
The physical model is a detailed design. It's DBMS specific, and takes into account data volume, expected traffic, and performance. Denormalization is relevant here. This leads directly to a creation script.
This is by no means the majority view, let alone a general consensus. You need to understand your audience to see if this framewok works.
Is it a homework or what? The question seems so artificial...
The 3rd one is Physical because the data types are closer to actual DBMS data types.
Between the 1st, and 2nd ones... I'm stuck. The only difference is the crow-feet relationship. If there's a progression between the three images, I'd guess this would make the 2nd one the Conceptual.
But it is difficult because, with PowerDesigner, you could still represent the relationship with crow-feet in the Logical model. But anyway, there should be evidence of the migration of the "foreign key" attribute id_cat in the News entity, which is missing here.
Nope. I was reading my example diagrams too fast, there's no migration in Logical model.
So, just by elimination, I'd make the 1st one the Logical.
Every time I program I recognize this relationship between classes and tables, or am I imagining it.
You can have a class per database table or a table per class i.e. :
tables: customer, products, order.
classes: customer, products, order, may have methods such as addRecord, deleteRecord, updateRecord.
what is this called? Object-Relational? I am not a DBA.
It all depends on the type of database you're using. If you're using an object oriented database (OODB), then there is no relationship, as the objects and the persisted data are the same thing. For example, if you have a Customer class, and you save it in an OODB, then that instance of the customer is what is stored in the DB.
If you are using a relational database, then the class instances, and the persisted representation of them in the DB, can be the same thing, but many times they aren't. This is because most folks use normalization to represent their data in an efficient way (in a relational DB). This means, instead of having a table per class, you can have a class represented by more than one table. In the Customer example, the tables might now be Customer (with Name, date of birth, and other properties), and Order (with order pointing to products in yet another table). The reason for this has to do with cardinality, and the ability for Customers to have more than one order. When your business logic needs this information from the DB, the data access layer's job is to map the data (called ORM) from the DB into your classes.
If you are using yet another type of DB, then there will be a different relationship between the classes (domain model) and what's persisted in the DB.
But, as far as having a name for this relationship? No, there is no name.
In additon to Bob's answer, the following.
In object modeling, the relationship between classes and subclasses is taken care of by inheritance, and object modelers know how to use inheritance to good advantage. The relational data model and by extension the SQL databases do not implement inheritance for you. You have to design tables to give you some of the same results.
In ER (Entity-Relationship) modeling, the corresponding concept is called generalization/specialization. This tells you how to model a class/subclass relationship, but it doesn't tell you how to design the tables when you go to build your database.
There are three techniques that are pretty well understood that can be really helpful when dealing with classes and subclasses. Here are their tags: single-table-inheritance class-table-inheritance shared-primary-key. Unfortunately, many tutorials on database design never cover these techniques. They can be enormously useful to people who know object modeling and want to come up to speed on relational modeling.
I have a database to create with a list of fields I need to include in it. I am required to do a table showing the normalization process from 1NF to 2NF to 3NF. However, I don't understand normalization AT ALL and I urgently need to try and get it normalized. The fields I am using are as follows:
CustomerID
Surname
Forename
Email
PhoneNo
ReservationID
DateRes
Collected(Y/N)
PhoneID
Brand
Model
OperatingSystem
ScreenSize
StorageSize
Price
Description
Img1
Img2
Thumbnail
Stock
Flagged (Y/N)
ContactID
Subject
Message
DateContact
Replied (Y/N)
I am not so good at database design so any help would be useful.
Assuming this is not homework, I wonder why you have to show the process by which your reach 3NF at all. If your database is in 3NF, who cares how you got there? Again, assuming this is not homework, there is an easy way to design a database that is in 3NF right off the bat.
Learn ER modeling. Use ER modeling to describe the information requirements your database has to meet. Choose your entities carefully. For each entity, choose an id for that entity very carefully. If it's not in the data as given, you may have to synthesize an id. This is data analysis, NOT database design. Make very, very sure that the attributes you discover at this stage are attached to the correct entity or relationship.
This is context dependent. For example, in a personnel system, "Date of Birth" is an attribute of an employee. But in a birthing center, "Date of Birth" is an attribute of a birth, and the person born has a relationship to that birth. Several persons can be born in one birth.
Learn how to convert an ER model to a relational model. For these purposes SQL models and relational models can be treated as equivalent. Be very, very careful in your choices of primary keys, and be aware of the consequences of using features like "automunber". You may need to use this feature, but come up with ways of coping when redundant data entry results in two rows with different primary keys that both refer to the same instance of a subject matter entity.
If your attributes have been connected to the right entity or relationship, if you did the conversion to a relational model correctly, and if you chose your primary keys right, your database will automagically be in 3NF.
If this IS homework, then your teacher's requirements are not clear from your question. It's probably just as easy to learn what the teacher is trying to teach you as it is to tell us what the real requirements are.