Caveat: very new to database design/modeling, so bear with me :)
I'm trying to design a simple database that stores information about images in an archive. Along with file_name (which is one distinct string), I have fields like genre and starring where each field might contains multiple strings (if an image is associated with multiple genres, and/or if an image has multiple actors in it).
Right now the database is just a single table keyed on file_name, and the fields like starring and genre just have multiple comma-separated values stored. I can query it fine by using wildcards and like and in operators, but I'm wondering if there's a more elegant way to break out the data such that it is easier to use/query. For instance, I'd like to be able to find how many unique actors are represented in the archive, but I don't think that's possible with the current model.
I realize this is a pretty elementary question about data modeling, but any guidance anyone can provide or reading you can direct me to would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
You need to create extra tables in order to stick with the normalization. In your situation you need 4 extra tables to represent these n->m relations(2 extra would be enough if the relations were 1->n).
Tables:
image(id, file_name)
genre(id, name)
image_genres(image_id, genre_id)
stars(id, name, ...)
image_stars(image_id, star_id)
And some data in tables:
image table
id
file_name
1
/users/home/song/empire.png
2
/users/home/song/promiscuous.png
genre table
id
name
1
pop
2
blues
3
rock
image_genres table
image_id
genre_id
1
2
1
3
2
1
stars table
id
name
1
Jay-Z
2
Alicia Keys
3
Nelly Furtado
4
Timbaland
image_stars table
image_id
star_id
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
4
For unique actor count in database you can simply run the sql query below
SELECT COUNT(name) FROM stars
Related
I accepted a new feature to re-order some items by using Drag-and-Drop UI and save the preference for each user to the database. What's the best way to do so?
After reading some questions on StackOverflow, I found this solution.
Solution 1: Use decimal numbers to indicate order
For example,
id item order
1 a 1
2 b 2
3 c 3
4 d 4
If I insert item 4 between item 1 and 2, the order becomes,
id item order
1 a 1
4 d 1.5
2 b 2
3 c 3
In this way, every new order = order[i-1] + order[i+1] / 2
If I need to save the preference for every user, then I need to another relationship table like this,
user_id item_id order
1 1 1
1 2 2
1 3 3
1 4 1.5
I need num_of_users * num_of_items records to save this preference.
However, there's a solution I can think of.
Solution 2: Save the order preference in a column in the User table
This is straightforward by adding a column in the User table to record the order. Each value would be parsed as an array of item_ids that ranked by the index of the array.
user_id . item_order
1 [1,4,2,3]
2 [1,2,3,4]
Is there any limitation of this solution? Or is there any other ways to solve this problem?
Usually, an explicit ordering deals with the presentation or some specific processing of data. Hence, it's a good idea to separate entities of theirs presentation/processing. For example
users
-----
user_id (PK)
user_login
...
user_lists
----------
list_id, user_id (PK)
item_index
item_index can be a simply integer value :
ordered continuously (1,2...N): DELETE/INSERT of the whole list are normally required to change the order
ordered discretely with some seed (10,20...N): you can insert new items without reordering the whole list
Another reason to separate entity data and lists: reordering lists should be done in transaction that may lead to row/table locks. In case of separated tables only data in list table is impacted.
This question already has answers here:
Is storing a delimited list in a database column really that bad?
(10 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have results data like this:
1. account, name, #, etc
2. account, name, #, etc
...
10. account, name, #, etc
I have approximately 1 set of results data generated each week.
Currently it's stored like so:
DATETIME DATA_BLOB
Which is annoying because I can't query any of the data without parsing the BLOB into a custom object. I'm thinking of changing this.
I'm thinking of having one giant table:
DATETIME RANK ACCOUNT NAME NUMBER ... ETC
date1 1 user1 nn #
date1 2 user2 nn #
...
date1 10 userN nn #
date2 1 user5 nn #
date2 2 user12 nn #
...
date2 10 userX nn #
I don't know anything about database design principles, so can someone give me feedback on whether this is a good approach or there might be a better one?
Thanks
I think it is ok to have a table like that, if there are not one-to-many relationships. In that case, it would be more efficient to have multiple tables like in my example below. Here are some general tips as well:
Tip: Good practice My professor told me that it's always good to have an "ID" column, which is a unique number identifier for each item in the table (1, 2, 3… etc.). (Perhaps that was the intent of your "Number" column.) I think SQLite forces each table to have an ID column anyways.
Tip: Saving storage space - Also, if there is a one-to-many relationship (example: one name has many accounts) then it might save space to have a separate table for the accounts, and then store the ID of the name in the first table- so that way you are storing many ints instead of duplicate strings.
Tip: Efficiency - Some databases have specific frameworks designed to handle relationships such as many-to-one or many-to-many, so if you use their framework for that (I don't remember exactly how to do it) it will probably work more efficiently.
Tip: Saving storage space - If you make your own ID column it might be a waste if it automatically includes an "ID" column anyways - so you might want to check for that possibility.
Conceptual Example: (Storing multiple accounts for the same name)
Poor Solution:
Storing everything in 1 table (inefficient, because it duplicates Bob's name, rank, and datetime):
ID NAME RANK DATETIME ACCOUNT
1 Bob 1 date1 bob_account_1
2 Joe 2 date2 user2_joe
3 Bob 1 date1 bob_account_2
4 Bob 1 date1 bobs_third_account
Better Solution: Having 2 tables to prevent duplicated information (Also demonstrates the usefulness of ID's). I named the 2 tables "Account" and "Name."
Table 1: "Account" (Note that NAME_ID refers to the ID column of Table 2)
ID NAME_ID ACCOUNT
1 1 bob_account_1
2 2 user2_joe
3 1 bob_account_2
4 1 bobs_third_account
Table 2: "Name"
ID NAME RANK DATETIME
1 Bob 1 date1
2 Joe 2 date2
I'm not a database expert so this is just some of what I learned in my internet programming class. I hope this helps lead you in the right direction in further research.
I've got a mental block about what I'm sure is a common scenario:
I have some data in a csv file that I need to do some very basic reporting from.
The data is essentially a table with Resources as column headings and People as row headings, the rest of the table consists of Y/N flag, "Y" if the person has access to the resource, "N" if they don't. Both the resources and the people have unique names.
Sample data:
Res1 Res2 Res3
Bob Y Y N
Tom N N N
Jim Y N Y
The table is too large to simply view it as whole in Excel(say 300 resources and 600 people), so I need a way to easily query and display (A simple list would be ok) what resources a person has access to, given the person's name.
The person that will need to use this has MS Office, and not much else on their PC.
So, the question is: What is the best way to manipulate this data to get the report I need? My gut says MS Access would be the best, but I can't figure out to automatically import data like this into a normal relational database. If not Access, perhaps there are some functions in Excel that could help me out?
You should normalize your data. This will make it easier to query against. For example:
table users:
UserID UserName
1 Bob
2 Tim
3 Jim
table resources:
ResourceID ResourceDesc
1 Printer #1
2 Fax Machine
3 Bowling Ball Wax
table users_resources:
LinkID UserID ResourceID
1 1 1
2 1 2
3 3 1
4 3 3
SELECT ResourceID
FROM users_resources, users
WHERE users.UserName="Bob"
alt text http://produits-lemieux.com/database.jpg
This is basicly my database structure
one product (let say soap) will have many retail selling size
1 liter
4 liters
20 liters
In my "produit" database I will have the soap item (id #1)
In the size database i will have many size availible :
1liter
4liter
20liter
How not to duplicate the product 3 time with a different size... i like to be able to have check box in the product size of all the size available in the database and check if yes or no (boolean)
The answer a got is perfect, but how to have the option like that :
soap [x] 1 liter , [ ] 4 liter , [x] 20 liter
I'm not sure I understand your exact scenario, but to create a many-to-many relationship, you simply create a "relationship table", in which you store id's for the two records you want to link.
Example:
Products
********
ProductID (PK)
Price
Retailers
*********
RetailerID (PK)
Name
ProductRetailerRelationships
****************************
ProductID
RetailerID
A many-to-many relationship is almost always modeled using an intermediate table. For your example,
Product
--------
prod_numero
...
Size
--------
size_numero
...
Product_Size
--------
prod_numero
size_numero
...
The Size table would contain particular sizes (say, 10 liter) and the Product_Size table creates a Product and Size pairing.
You Will need an Intermediary, or "Join" Table
ProductSizes
.......................
ProductID
SizeID
One record for each product-size combination
Based on the answers, here is the database tables layout as proposed, it look complicated to me, but are you sure it is the way to do this, the BEST solution ?
alt text http://produits-lemieux.com/database2.jpg
I am making a videos website where categories will be nested:
e.g. Programming-> C Language - > MIT Videos -> Video 1
Programming -> C Language -> Stanford Video - > Video 1
Programming -> Python -> Video 1
These categories and sub-categories will be created by users on the fly. I will need to show them as people create them in the form of a navigable menu, so that people can browse the collection easily.
Could someone please help me with how I can go about creating such a database?
Make a categories table with the following fields:
CategoryID - Integer
CategoryName - String/Varchar/Whatever
ParentID - Integer
Your ParentID will then reference back to the CategoryID of its parent.
Example:
CategoryID CategoryName ParentID
---------------------------------
1 Dog NULL
2 Cat NULL
3 Poodle 1
4 Dachsund 1
5 Persian 2
6 Toy Poodle 3
Quassnoi said :
You should use either nested sets or parent-child models.
I used to implement both of them. What I could say is:
Use the nested set architecture if your categories table doesn't change often, because on a select clause it's fast and with only one request you can get the whole branch of the hierarchy for a given entry. But on a insert or update clause it takes more time than a parent child model to update the left and right (or lower and upper in the example below) fields.
Another point, quite trivial I must admit, but:
It's very difficult to change the hierarchy by hand directly in the database (It could happen during the development). So, be sure to implement first an interface to play with the nested set (changing parent node, move a branch node, deleting a node or the whole branch etc.)
Here are two articles on the subject:
Storing Hierarchical Data in a Database
Managing Hierarchical Data in MySQL
Last thing, I didn't try it, but I read somewhere that you can have more than one tree in a nested set table, I mean several roots.
You should use either nested sets or parent-child models.
Parent-child:
typeid parent name
1 0 Buyers
2 0 Sellers
3 0 Referee
4 1 Electrical
5 1 Mechanic
SELECT *
FROM mytable
WHERE group IN
(
SELECT typeid
FROM group_types
START WITH
typeid = 1
CONNECT BY
parent = PRIOR typeid
)
will select all buyers in Oracle.
Nested sets:
typeid lower upper Name
1 1 2 Buyers
2 3 3 Sellers
3 4 4 Referee
4 1 1 Electrical
5 2 2 Mechanic
SELECT *
FROM group_types
JOIN mytable
ON group BETWEEN lower AND upper
WHERE typeid = 1
will select all buyers in any database.
See this answer for more detail.
Nested sets is more easy to query, but it's harder to update and harder to build a tree structure.
From the example in your question it looks like you'd want it to be possible for a given category to have multiple parents (e.g., "MIT Videos -> Video 1 Programming" as well as "Video -> Video 1 Programming"), in which case simply adding a ParentID column would not be sufficient.
I would recommend creating two tables: a simple Categories table with CategoryID and CategoryName columns, and a separate CategoryRelationships table with ParentCategoryID and ChildCategoryID columns. This way you can specify as many parent-child relationships as you want for any particular category. It would even be possible using this model to have a dual relationship where two categories are each other's parent and child simultaneously. (Off the top of my head, I can't think of a great use for this scenario, but at least it illustrates how flexible the model is.)
What you need is a basic parent-child relationship:
Category (ID: int, ParentID: nullable int, Name: nvarchar(1000))
A better way to store the parent_id of the table is to have it nested within the ID
e.g
100000 Programming
110000 C Language
111000 Video 1 Programming
111100 C Language
111110 Stanford Video
etc..so all you need it a script to process the ID such that the first digit represents the top level category and so on as you go deeper down the hierarchy