I know the concept of SCD-2 and I'm trying to improve my skills about it doing some practices.
I have the next scenario/experiment:
I'm calling daily to a rest API to extract information about companies.
In my initial load to the DB everything is new, so everything is very easy.
Next day I call to the same rest API, which might returns the same companies, but some of them might have (or not) some changes (i.e., they changed the size, the profits, the location, ...)
I know SCD-2 might be really simple if the rest API returns just records with changes, but in this case it might returns as well records without changes.
In this scenario, how people detect if the data of a company has changes or not in order to apply SCD-2?, do they compare all the fields?.
Is there any example out there that I can see?
There is no standard SCD-2 nor even a unique concept of it. It is a general term for large number of possible approaches. The only chance is to practice and see what is suitable for your use case.
In any case you must identify the natural key of the dimension and the set of the attributes you want to keep the history.
You may of course make it more complex by the decision to use your own surrogate key.
You mentioned that there are two main types of the interface for the process:
• You get periodically a full set of the dimension data
• You get the “changes only” (aka delta interface)
Paradoxically the former is much simple to handle than the latter.
First of all, in the full dimensional snapshot the natural key holds, contrary to the delta interface (where you may get more changes for one entity).
Additionally you have to handle the case of late change delivery or even the wrong order of changes delivery.
Next important decision is if you expect deletes to occur. This is again trivial in the full interface, you must define some convention, how this information would be passed in the delta interface.
Connected is the question whether a previously deleted entity can be reused (i.e. reappear in the data).
If you support delete/reuse you'll have to thing about how to show them in your dimension table.
In any case you will need some additional columns in the dimension to cover the historical information.
Some implementation use a change_timestamp, some other use validity interval valid_from and valid_to.
Even other implementation claim that additional sequence number is required – so you avoid the trap of more changes with the identical timestamp.
So you see that before you look for some particular implementation you need carefully decide the options above. For example the full and delta interface leads to a completely different implementations.
Related
I'm currently working on generalizing a platform, which handles incoming payments, potentially keeps some of it for offsetting reasons, and then payouts the rest. For now, the system has been made to work with a single type of incoming payment, but we're now generalizing it to handle different types. Each payment type has its own quirks, but a lot of similarities, so we have decided to extract all behavior that varies between each type of "money" in database tables. The tables basically store user configurations, such as algorithms (basically different code fragments, i.e., the name of code to be executed), booleans and passed parameters.
We must store the history of previously configured values for a particular type of money, since configurations may change over time. Eventually there is a finite number of configuration points in the code.
Solutions
It seems as though there basically exists 3 overall approaches for storing "user" configurations. Either as an EAV table in the RBDMS, make explicit columns for each configuration, or leverage JSON/XML/some other text format.
EAV
EAV has its obvious strengths in making everything very general, and thus easy to extract from the database. The largest concern is data integrity, and that every configuration parameter must be specified for every type of money, and ensuring that becomes more difficult in EAV. Keeping the history is straightforward: simply add a version/timestamp column, and select the latest version for a particular type of money.
Explicit columns
Explicit columns, i.e., one column for every configuration point, makes it much simpler to ensure that all configuration points have been defined. Since there eventually are no more additions of configuration points, it seems preferable to EAV. Keeping a history becomes more troublesome, though. Oracle comes with audit functionality, but does not seem to present itself easily to be presented in a GUI. A seperate log table can be leveraged, but is cumbersome to maintain, especially if this is done by using triggers. Every addition of a column (i.e., new configuration point) means that the trigger has to be regenerated.
An alternative to the trigger, is to have a versioning column in the configuration tables. Then, a view can be used on top of the configuration table, selecting the latest row for each type of money. However, adding a new column becomes troublesome, as if it's non-nullable, old rows (i.e. those that have become history), must be updated with potentially bogus values. This can obviously be avoided by relaxing the non-nullable constraint, but then data integrity becomes much worse, as the values must be specified.
I haven't looked too much into the JSON/XML approach, but it seems to have many of the same problems as EAV.
My question: is there a standardized way of approaching this? It seems that most people who deal with user configurations, don't have to keep an exact history in tables as well. One could simply use the migration SQL files that are created, but configurations may be changed from a GUI as well.
I'm working with two consultants in one project. The thing is we reached a point where both of them cannot get into an agreement and each offer a different approach.
The thing is we have a store with four departments and we want to find the best approach for working with all of them in the same database.
Each department sell different products: Cars, Boats, Jetskies and Motorbikes.
When the data is inserted or updated in each department there are some triggers to be fires so different workflows will begin, when adding a new car there are certain requirements that needs to be checked as well as the details of the car that are completely different than a boat. Also, regarding the data there are not many fields there are in common, I would say so far only the brand, color, model and year, everything else is specific for each deparment due to the different products and how they work with them..
Consultant one says:
Create one table for all the departments and use a column to identify what department the row belongs to, this way you will have only one trigger and inside the trigger you will then call the function/mehod you need for each record type.
Reason: you only have one table (with over 200 fields) and one trigger, is easier to maintain. Also if you need to report you just need to query one table and filter based on the record type. If you need to report for all the items you don't need to have multiple joins.
Consultant two says:
Create one table for each deparment and a trigger for each table.
Reason: you will have smaller tables (aprox 50 fields each) and is more flexible and you have it all separated. If you want to report you need to join the tables as you want to include data from different places.
I see the advantages of having everything in one place but if I want to expand or change anything I have the feeling I will bre creating a beast table as the data grows.
On the other side keep it separated look more appealing but will need to setup everything for each different table.
What would you say is the best approach?
You should probably listen to consultant number two.
The thing is, all design is trade-offs. You need to assess the pros and cons of each approach and you need to think about the risks that each design entails.
What happens when your design grows? (department 5, more details per product type,...)
What happens when the system scales up to higher transaction volumes?
What happens when your business rules change?
I've been doing this for a long time and I've seen some pendulums swing back and forth when it comes to what is "in fashion" as far as database and software best practices.
I'd say right now the prevailing wisdom is that separation of concerns is innately good. This means you should keep your program logic (trigger code) separate for each department. This makes sense because your logic will vary from one product type to the next since they mostly have distinct columns.
This second point is also important, because your stake in the ground for a transactional system should always be start with third normal form (or higher, if necessary). Sometimes you can get away without it, but four different types of objects with 40 or more distinct attributes each doesn't sound like a good candidate for jamming everything into one table. How do you keep track of which columns belong to which type of product, for example? A separate table for each product type keeps this clean and simple - and importantly - easy for your support programmers to understand.
Contrary to what consultant one is saying, having one trigger instead of four is not likely to be easier to maintain if that one trigger is a big bowl of spaghetti, or even four tidy, well written subroutines joined together with a switch type statement.
These days, programmers favour short, atomic, single-purpose functions (triggers, in your case).
If there is enough common data and common business logic that doing it four times seems awkward, then maybe you have a good candidate for a super-type / sub-type design.
I'll say one
These are all Products, It doesn't matter that its a Bike or a Car. You can control the fields and the object by RecordTypes and Page layouts and that will save you from having 4 Objects, which means potentially 8 new classes(if it follows my pattern it could be up to 20+) + all of the workflow rules and validation rules across the these new objects, it will be very hard to maintain a structure that has 4 objects but are all the same thing.. Tracking Products.
Down the road if you decide to add a new product such as planes, it will be very easy to add a plane to this object and the code will be able to pick up from there if needed. You will definitely need Record Types to manage each Product. The trigger code shouldn't be an issue if the consultants are building it properly meaning a trigger should never have any business logic so as long as that is followed all of the code will be maintainable
I will go with one.
I assume you have a large number of products and this list will grow in future. All these are Products at the end. They will have some common fields and common logic.
If you use Process Builder with Invocable classes instead of Triggers, you may be able to get away with just configuration changes while adding a new object, if its fields and functionality are same/similar to a existing object.
There may also be limitation on the number of different objects a profile has access to based on your license types.
Salesforce has a standard object called Product. Its a single object to be classifies based on record type.
I would have gone with approach two if this was not salesforce. Based on how salesforce works and the limitations it imposes one seems like a better and cleaner solution.
I would say option 2.
Why?
(1) I would find one table with 200+ columns harder to maintain. You're also then going to have to expose fields for an object that doesn't need said fields.
(2) You are also going to have to "hide" logic inside the trigger which then decides to do different actions based on the type of department etc...
(3) Option 2 involves more "scaffolding" and separate objects but those are objects are inherently smaller and easier to maintain and don't specifically hide logic or cause any sort of ambiguity.
(4) Option 2 abides by the single responsibility principle. Not everyone follows this I understand but I find it a good guiding principle, as the responsibility for the data lies with the individual table and the responsibility for triggered the action lies with the individual trigger as opposed to just being one mammoth entity/trigger.
** I would state that I am simply looking at this from a software development perspective, I am not sure whether or not SalesForce would handle this setup, but it is the way I would personally prefer to design it. :)
Option 2 for me.
You've said that there is little common data and the trigger logic is completely different. Here are some additional technical considerations.
Option 1 Warnings
The trigger would be a single point of failure and errors will be trickier to debug. I have worked with large triggers where broken logic near the top has stopped logic near the bottom from running, sometimes silently! You also have to maintain conditional guards to control the flow of logic based on the data which is another opportunity for error.
I'm not red hot on indexes but I believe performance will suffer due to no natural order of the multi-purpose data. More specific tables will yield better indexing strategies. Also, large rows can lead to fragmented indexes.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/pamitt/2010/12/23/notes-sql-server-index-fragmentation-types-and-solutions/
You would need extra consideration when setting nullable/default constraints on each surplus field not relevant to the product in question. These subtleties can introduce bugs and might make it harder if/when you decide to work with a data layer technology such as Entity Framework. E.g. the logical difference between NULL, 0 and 'None', especially on shared columns.
I have an application design question concerning handling data sets in certain situations.
Let's say I have an application where I use some entities. We have an Order, containing information about the client, deadline, etc. Then we have Service entity having one to many relation with an Order. Service contains it's name. Besides that, we have a Rule entity, that sets some rules concerning what to deduct from the material stock. It has one to many relation with Service entity.
Now, my question is: How to handle situation, when I create an Order, and I persist it to the database, with it's relations, but at the same time, I don't want the changes made to entities that happen to be in a relation with the generated order visible. I need to treat the Order and the data associated with it as some kind of a log, so that removing a service from the table, or changing a set of rules, is not changing already generated orders, services, and rules that were used during the process.
Normally, how I would handle that, would be duplicating Services and Rules, and inserting it into new table, so that data would be independent from the one that is used during Order generation. Order would simply point to the duplicated data, instead of the original one, which would fix my problem. But that's data duplication, and as I think, it's not the best way to do it.
So, if you understood my question, do you know any better idea for solving that kind of a problem? I'm sorry if what I wrote doesn't make any sense. Just tell me, and I'll try to express myself in a better way.
I've been looking into the same case resently, so I'd like to share some thoughts.
The idea is to treat each entity, that requires versioning, as an object and store in the database object's instances. Say, for service entity this could be presented like:
service table, that contains only service_id column, PrimaryKey;
service_state (or ..._instance) table, that contains:
service_id, Foreign Key to the service.service_id;
state_start_dt, a moment in time when this state becomes active, NOT NULL;
state_end_dt, a moment in time when this state is obsoleted, NULLable;
all the real attributes of the service;
Primary Key is service_id + state_start_dt.
for sure, state_start_dt::state_end_dt ranges cannot overlap, should be constrained.
What's good in such approach?
You have a full history of state transitions of your essential objects;
You can query system as it was at the given point in time;
Delivery of new configuration can be done in advance by inserting an appropriate record(s) with desired state_start_dt stamps;
Change auditing is integrated into the design (well, a couple of extra columns are required for a comlpete tracing).
What's wrong?
There will be data duplication. To reduce it make sure to split up the instantiating relations. Like: do not create a single table for customer data, create a bunch of those for credentials, addresses, contacts, financial information, etc.
The real Primary Key is service.service_id, while information is kept in a subordinate table service_state. This can lead to situation, when your service exists, while somebody had (intentionally or by mistake) removed all service_state records.
It's difficult to decide at which point in time it is safe to remove state records into the offline archive, for as long as there are entities in the system that reference service, one should check their effective dates prior to removing any state records.
Due to #3, one cannot just delete records from the service_state. In fact, it is also wrong to rely on the state_end_dt column, for service may have been active for a while and then suppressed. And querying service during moment when it was active should indicate service as active. Therefore, status column is required.
I think, that keeping in mind this approach downsides, it is quite nice.
Though I'd like to hear some comments from the Relational Model perspective — especially on the drawbacks of such design.
I would recommend just duplicating the data in separate snapshot table(s). You could certainly use versioning schemes on the main table(s), but I would question how much additional complexity results in the effort to reduce duplicate data. I find that extra complexity in the data model results in a system that is much harder to extend. I would consider duplicate data to be the lesser of 2 evils here.
How do you go about collecting and storing data which was not part of the initial database and software design? For example, if you've come up with a pointing system, you have to collect the points for every user which has already been registered. For new users, that would be easy, because the changes of the business logic will reflect the pointing system ... but the old ones?
In general, how does one deal with data, which should have been there from the beginning, but wasn't? Writing manual queries to collect the missing pieces? Using crons?
Well, you are asking for something that is by definition not possible, I think.
deal with data hich should have been there from the beginning, but wasn't?
Because if you are able to deduce the number of points from the existing data in the database. If that were possible, there is obviously no missing data.... Storing the points separately would make it redundant (still a fine option in case you need that for performance).
For example: stackoverflow rewards number of consecutive visits. Let's say they did not do that from the start. If they were logging date-of-visit already, you can recalc the points. So no missing data.
So if that is not possible, you need another solution: either get data from other sources (parse a webserver log) or get the business to draft some extra business rules for the determination of the default values for the existing users (difficult in this particular example).
Writing manual queries to collect the missing pieces? Using crons?
I would populate that in a conversion script or even in a special conversion application if very complex.
I'm designing a PostgreSQL database that takes in readings from many sensor sources. I've done a lot of research into the design and I'm looking for some fresh input to help get me out of a rut here.
To be clear, I am not looking for help describing the sources of data or any related metadata. I am specifically trying to figure out how to best store data values (eventually of various types).
The basic structure of the data coming in is as follows:
For each data logging device, there are several channels.
For each channel, the logger reads data and attaches it to a record with a timestamp
Different channels may have different data types, but generally a float4 will suffice.
Users should (through database functions) be able to add different value types, but this concern is secondary.
Loggers and channels will also be added through functions.
The distinguishing characteristic of this data layout is that I've got many channels associating data points to a single record with a timestamp and index number.
Now, to describe the data volume and common access patterns:
Data will be coming in for about 5 loggers, each with 48 channels, for every minute.
The total data volume in this case will be 345,600 readings per day, 126 million per year, and this data needs to be continually read for the next 10 years at least.
More loggers & channels will be added in the future, possibly from physically different types of devices but hopefully with similar storage representation.
Common access will include querying similar channel types across all loggers and joining across logger timestamps. For example, get channel1 from logger1, channel4 from logger2, and do a full outer join on logger1.time = logger2.time.
I should also mention that each logger timestamp is something that is subject to change due to time adjustment, and will be described in a different table showing the server's time reading, the logger's time reading, transmission latency, clock adjustment, and resulting adjusted clock value. This will happen for a set of logger records/timestamps depending on retrieval. This is my motivation for RecordTable below but otherwise isn't of much concern for now as long as I can reference a (logger, time, record) row from somewhere that will change the timestamps for associated data.
I have considered quite a few schema options, the most simple resembling a hybrid EAV approach where the table itself describes the attribute, since most attributes will just be a real value called "value". Here's a basic layout:
RecordTable DataValueTable
---------- --------------
[PK] id <-- [FK] record_id
[FK] logger_id [FK] channel_id
record_number value
logger_time
Considering that logger_id, record_number, and logger_time are unique, I suppose I am making use of surrogate keys here but hopefully my justification of saving space is meaningful here. I have also considered adding a PK id to DataValueTable (rather than the PK being record_id and channel_id) in order to reference data values from other tables, but I am trying to resist the urge to make this model "too flexible" for now. I do, however, want to start getting data flowing soon and not have to change this part when extra features or differently-structured-data need to be added later.
At first, I was creating record tables for each logger and then value tables for each channel and describing them elsewhere (in one place), with views to connect them all, but that just felt "wrong" because I was repeating the same thing so many times. I guess I'm trying to find a happy medium between too many tables and too many rows, but partitioning the bigger data (DataValueTable) seems strange because I'd most likely be partitioning on channel_id, so each partition would have the same value for every row. Also, partitioning in that regard would require a bit of work in re-defining the check conditions in the main table every time a channel is added. Partitioning by date is only applicable to the RecordTable, which isn't really necessary considering how relatively small it will be (7200 rows per day with the 5 loggers).
I also considered using the above with partial indexes on channel_id since DataValueTable will grow very large but the set of channel ids will remain small-ish, but I am really not certain that this will scale well after many years. I have done some basic testing with mock data and the performance is only so-so, and I want it to remain exceptional as data volume grows. Also, some express concern with vacuuming and analyzing a large table, and dealing with a large number of indexes (up to 250 in this case).
On a very small side note, I will also be tracking changes to this data and allowing for annotations (e.g. a bird crapped on the sensor, so these values were adjusted/marked etc), so keep that in the back of your mind when considering the design here but it is a separate concern for now.
Some background on my experience/technical level, if it helps to see where I'm coming from: I am a CS PhD student, and I work with data/databases on a regular basis as part of my research. However, my practical experience in designing a robust database for clients (this is part of a business) that has exceptional longevity and flexible data representation is somewhat limited. I think my main problem now is I am considering all the angles of approach to this problem instead of focusing on getting it done, and I don't see a "right" solution in front of me at all.
So In conclusion, I guess these are my primary queries for you: if you've done something like this, what has worked for you? What are the benefits/drawbacks I'm not seeing of the various designs I've proposed here? How might you design something like this, given these parameters and access patterns?
I'll be happy to provide clarification/details where needed, and thanks in advance for being awesome.
It is no problem at all to provide all this in a Relational database. PostgreSQL is not enterprise class, but it is certainly one of the better freeware SQLs.
To be clear, I am not looking for help describing the sources of data or any related metadata. I am specifically trying to figure out how to best store data values (eventually of various types).
That is your biggest obstacle. Contrary to program design, which allows decomposition and isolated analysis/design of components, databases need to be designed as a single unit. Normalisation and other design techniques need to consider both the whole, and the component in context. The data, the descriptions, the metadata have to be evaluated together, not as separate parts.
Second, when you start off with surrogate keys, implying that you know the data, and how it relates to other data, it prevents you from genuine modelling of the data.
I have answered a very similar set of questions, coincidentally re very similar data. If you could read those answers first, it would save us both a lot of typing time on your question/answer.
Answer One/ID Obstacle
Answer Two/Main
Answer Three/Historical
I did something like this with seismic data for a petroleum exploration company.
My suggestion would be to store the meta-data in a database, and keep the sensor data in flat files, whatever that means for your computer's operating system.
You would have to write your own access routines if you want to modify the sensor data. Actually, you should never modify the sensor data. You should make a copy of the sensor data with the modifications so that you can show later what changes were made to the sensor data.