Related
I am creating a mobile game where I am optimistically hoping i'll have millions of players.
I have created a users table that currently has roughly 8 columns (ie. userid, username, password, last_signin, etc)
For every user I'll also need to record the amount of in-game currency they have (ie. gold, silver, gems, etc).
This is a 1:1 relationship (a user will only ever have 1 value defining how much gold they have).
I am no database expert (which is why I am posting here). I worry If I added the gold, silver, gems, etc as new rows in the users table that the users table will be hammered with a crazy amount of queries per second. Everytime someone in the game finds more gold, more silver, logs in, creates an account... the users table will be accessed and/or updated.
Would it be smarter to add the gold, silver, and gems as columns in a new table called "resources" that had the following columns : userid, gold, silver, gems. This new table would have the exact same number of rows as the user table since there is a 1:1 relationship between users and resources. I'm wondering if those queries would be faster since the database data is split up and not all queries would go to the same table.
Clearly to me it seems better to put it all in 1 table since they are 1:1.... but It also seemed like a bad idea to have the majority of the games data in 1 table.
Thanks for any advice you can give!
Ryan
There are plenty of cases where good design calls for two tables in a 1:1 relationship with each other. There is no normalization rule that calls for decomposing tables in this manner. But normalization isn't the only handle on good design.
Access traffic is another handle. Your intuition that access to resources is going to be much more frequent than access to basic user data sounds credible. But you will need to check it out, to make sure that the transactions that access resources don't end up using basic user data anyway. It all boils down to which costs more: a fat user table or more joins.
Other responders have already hinted that there may come a day when the 1:1 relationship becomes a 1:many relationship. I can imagine one. The model of the game player gets expanded where a single user can get involved in multiple distinct instances of the game. In this case, a single user might have the same basic user data in all instances, but different resources in each instance. I have no way of telling if this is ever going to happen in your case. But, if it does, you're going to be better off with a separate resources table.
It really depends on your game design, how big your database is, and how you might expand your database in the future. I would put the resources in a separate table with a foreign key pointing to the user id because:
You can keep the user table slimmer for easier
maintenance/backup.
Simple 1-to-1 JOIN operation between two
tables doesn't take much more resources than having everything in
the same table, as long as you have proper indexing.
By keeping your tables separated, you are practicing separation of concerns;
multiple people can work on different stuff without having to worry
about affecting other tables.
Easier to expand. You may want to add other columns such as birth_date, region, first_name, etc. that
are more relevant to users' personal info to the users table in the
future. It will be confusing if columns of different purposes are
stored together. (In PostgreSQL you can't simply arrange column
order though you can create Views for that.)
This is a 1:1 relationship (a user will only ever have 1 value defining how much gold they have).
... for now ;)
I am no database expert (which is why I am posting here). I worry If I added the gold, silver, gems, etc as new rows in the users table
New columns?
Would it be smarter to add the gold, silver, and gems as columns in a new table called "resources"
Probably, because:
You'll be doing smaller writes when you update the frequently updated part, without rewriting less-modified user data
It makes it easier to audit changes to the user data
Sorry for that noob question but is there any real needs to use one-to-one relationship with tables in your database? You can implement all necessary fields inside one table. Even if data becomes very large you can enumerate column names that you need in SELECT statement instead of using SELECT *. When do you really need this separation?
1 to 0..1
The "1 to 0..1" between super and sub-classes is used as a part of "all classes in separate tables" strategy for implementing inheritance.
A "1 to 0..1" can be represented in a single table with "0..1" portion covered by NULL-able fields. However, if the relationship is mostly "1 to 0" with only a few "1 to 1" rows, splitting-off the "0..1" portion into a separate table might save some storage (and cache performance) benefits. Some databases are thriftier at storing NULLs than others, so a "cut-off point" where this strategy becomes viable can vary considerably.
1 to 1
The real "1 to 1" vertically partitions the data, which may have implications for caching. Databases typically implement caches at the page level, not at the level of individual fields, so even if you select only a few fields from a row, typically the whole page that row belongs to will be cached. If a row is very wide and the selected fields relatively narrow, you'll end-up caching a lot of information you don't actually need. In a situation like that, it may be useful to vertically partition the data, so only the narrower, more frequently used portion or rows gets cached, so more of them can fit into the cache, making the cache effectively "larger".
Another use of vertical partitioning is to change the locking behavior: databases typically cannot lock at the level of individual fields, only the whole rows. By splitting the row, you are allowing a lock to take place on only one of its halfs.
Triggers are also typically table-specific. While you can theoretically have just one table and have the trigger ignore the "wrong half" of the row, some databases may impose additional limits on what a trigger can and cannot do that could make this impractical. For example, Oracle doesn't let you modify the mutating table - by having separate tables, only one of them may be mutating so you can still modify the other one from your trigger.
Separate tables may allow more granular security.
These considerations are irrelevant in most cases, so in most cases you should consider merging the "1 to 1" tables into a single table.
See also: Why use a 1-to-1 relationship in database design?
My 2 cents.
I work in a place where we all develop in a large application, and everything is a module. For example, we have a users table, and we have a module that adds facebook details for a user, another module that adds twitter details to a user. We could decide to unplug one of those modules and remove all its functionality from our application. In this case, every module adds their own table with 1:1 relationships to the global users table, like this:
create table users ( id int primary key, ...);
create table users_fbdata ( id int primary key, ..., constraint users foreign key ...)
create table users_twdata ( id int primary key, ..., constraint users foreign key ...)
If you place two one-to-one tables in one, its likely you'll have semantics issue. For example, if every device has one remote controller, it doesn't sound quite good to place the device and the remote controller with their bunch of characteristics in one table. You might even have to spend time figuring out if a certain attribute belongs to the device or the remote controller.
There might be cases, when half of your columns will stay empty for a long while, or will not ever be filled in. For example, a car could have one trailer with a bunch of characteristics, or might have none. So you'll have lots of unused attributes.
If your table has 20 attributes, and only 4 of them are used occasionally, it makes sense to break the table into 2 tables for performance issues.
In such cases it isn't good to have everything in one table. Besides, it isn't easy to deal with a table that has 45 columns!
If data in one table is related to, but does not 'belong' to the entity described by the other, then that's a candidate to keep it separate.
This could provide advantages in future, if the separate data needs to be related to some other entity, also.
The most sensible time to use this would be if there were two separate concepts that would only ever relate in this way. For example, a Car can only have one current Driver, and the Driver can only drive one car at a time - so the relationship between the concepts of Car and Driver would be 1 to 1. I accept that this is contrived example to demonstrate the point.
Another reason is that you want to specialize a concept in different ways. If you have a Person table and want to add the concept of different types of Person, such as Employee, Customer, Shareholder - each one of these would need different sets of data. The data that is similar between them would be on the Person table, the specialist information would be on the specific tables for Customer, Shareholder, Employee.
Some database engines struggle to efficiently add a new column to a very large table (many rows) and I have seen extension-tables used to contain the new column, rather than the new column being added to the original table. This is one of the more suspect uses of additional tables.
You may also decide to divide the data for a single concept between two different tables for performance or readability issues, but this is a reasonably special case if you are starting from scratch - these issues will show themselves later.
First, I think it is a question of modelling and defining what consist a separate entity. Suppose you have customers with one and only one single address. Of course you could implement everything in a single table customer, but if, in the future you allow him to have 2 or more addresses, then you will need to refactor that (not a problem, but take a conscious decision).
I can also think of an interesting case not mentioned in other answers where splitting the table could be useful:
Imagine, again, you have customers with a single address each, but this time it is optional to have an address. Of course you could implement that as a bunch of NULL-able columns such as ZIP,state,street. But suppose that given that you do have an address the state is not optional, but the ZIP is. How to model that in a single table? You could use a constraint on the customer table, but it is much easier to divide in another table and make the foreign_key NULLable. That way your model is much more explicit in saying that the entity address is optional, and that ZIP is an optional attribute of that entity.
not very often.
you may find some benefit if you need to implement some security - so some users can see some of the columns (table1) but not others (table2)..
of course some databases (Oracle) allow you to do this kind of security in the same table, but some others may not.
You are referring to database normalization. One example that I can think of in an application that I maintain is Items. The application allows the user to sell many different types of items (i.e. InventoryItems, NonInventoryItems, ServiceItems, etc...). While I could store all of the fields required by every item in one Items table, it is much easier to maintain to have a base Item table that contains fields common to all items and then separate tables for each item type (i.e. Inventory, NonInventory, etc..) which contain fields specific to only that item type. Then, the item table would have a foreign key to the specific item type that it represents. The relationship between the specific item tables and the base item table would be one-to-one.
Below, is an article on normalization.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283878
As with all design questions the answer is "it depends."
There are few considerations:
how large will the table get (both in terms of fields and rows)? It can be inconvenient to house your users' name, password with other less commonly used data both from a maintenance and programming perspective
fields in the combined table which have constraints could become cumbersome to manage over time. for example, if a trigger needs to fire for a specific field, that's going to happen for every update to the table regardless of whether that field was affected.
how certain are you that the relationship will be 1:1? As This question points out, things get can complicated quickly.
Another use case can be the following: you might import data from some source and update it daily, e.g. information about books. Then, you add data yourself about some books. Then it makes sense to put the imported data in another table than your own data.
I normally encounter two general kinds of 1:1 relationship in practice:
IS-A relationships, also known as supertype/subtype relationships. This is when one kind of entity is actually a type of another entity (EntityA IS A EntityB). Examples:
Person entity, with separate entities for Accountant, Engineer, Salesperson, within the same company.
Item entity, with separate entities for Widget, RawMaterial, FinishedGood, etc.
Car entity, with separate entities for Truck, Sedan, etc.
In all these situations, the supertype entity (e.g. Person, Item or Car) would have the attributes common to all subtypes, and the subtype entities would have attributes unique to each subtype. The primary key of the subtype would be the same as that of the supertype.
"Boss" relationships. This is when a person is the unique boss or manager or supervisor of an organizational unit (department, company, etc.). When there is only one boss allowed for an organizational unit, then there is a 1:1 relationship between the person entity that represents the boss and the organizational unit entity.
The main time to use a one-to-one relationship is when inheritance is involved.
Below, a person can be a staff and/or a customer. The staff and customer inherit the person attributes. The advantage being if a person is a staff AND a customer their details are stored only once, in the generic person table. The child tables have details specific to staff and customers.
In my time of programming i encountered this only in one situation. Which is when there is a 1-to-many and an 1-to-1 relationship between the same 2 entities ("Entity A" and "Entity B").
When "Entity A" has multiple "Entity B" and "Entity B" has only 1 "Entity A"
and
"Entity A" has only 1 current "Entity B" and "Entity B" has only 1 "Entity A".
For example, a Car can only have one current Driver, and the Driver can only drive one car at a time - so the relationship between the concepts of Car and Driver would be 1 to 1. - I borrowed this example from #Steve Fenton's answer
Where a Driver can drive multiple Cars, just not at the same time. So the Car and Driver entities are 1-to-many or many-to-many. But if we need to know who the current driver is, then we also need the 1-to-1 relation.
Another use case might be if the maximum number of columns in the database table is exceeded. Then you could join another table using OneToOne
I am having a hard time trying to figure out when to use a 1-to-1 relationship in db design or if it is ever necessary.
If you can select only the columns you need in a query is there ever a point to break up a table into 1-to-1 relationships. I guess updating a large table has more impact on performance than a smaller table and I'm sure it depends on how heavily the table is used for certain operations (read/ writes)
So when designing a database schema how do you factor in 1-to-1 relationships? What criteria do you use to determine if you need one, and what are the benefits over not using one?
From the logical standpoint, a 1:1 relationship should always be merged into a single table.
On the other hand, there may be physical considerations for such "vertical partitioning" or "row splitting", especially if you know you'll access some columns more frequently or in different pattern than the others, for example:
You might want to cluster or partition the two "endpoint" tables of a 1:1 relationship differently.
If your DBMS allows it, you might want to put them on different physical disks (e.g. more performance-critical on an SSD and the other on a cheap HDD).
You have measured the effect on caching and you want to make sure the "hot" columns are kept in cache, without "cold" columns "polluting" it.
You need a concurrency behavior (such as locking) that is "narrower" than the whole row. This is highly DBMS-specific.
You need different security on different columns, but your DBMS does not support column-level permissions.
Triggers are typically table-specific. While you can theoretically have just one table and have the trigger ignore the "wrong half" of the row, some databases may impose additional limits on what a trigger can and cannot do. For example, Oracle doesn't let you modify the so called "mutating" table from a row-level trigger - by having separate tables, only one of them may be mutating so you can still modify the other from your trigger (but there are other ways to work-around that).
Databases are very good at manipulating the data, so I wouldn't split the table just for the update performance, unless you have performed the actual benchmarks on representative amounts of data and concluded the performance difference is actually there and significant enough (e.g. to offset the increased need for JOINing).
On the other hand, if you are talking about "1:0 or 1" (and not a true 1:1), this is a different question entirely, deserving a different answer...
See also: When I should use one to one relationship?
Separation of duties and abstraction of database tables.
If I have a user and I design the system for each user to have an address, but then I change the system, all I have to do is add a new record to the Address table instead of adding a brand new table and migrating the data.
EDIT
Currently right now if you wanted to have a person record and each person had exactly one address record, then you could have a 1-to-1 relationship between a Person table and an Address table or you could just have a Person table that also had the columns for the address.
In the future maybe you made the decision to allow a person to have multiple addresses. You would not have to change your database structure in the 1-to-1 relationship scenario, you only have to change how you handle the data coming back to you. However, in the single table structure you would have to create a new table and migrate the address data to the new table in order to create a best practice 1-to-many relationship database structure.
Well, on paper, normalized form looks to be the best. In real world usually it is a trade-off. Most large systems that I know do trade-offs and not trying to be fully normalized.
I'll try to give an example. If you are in a banking application, with 10 millions passbook account, and the usual transactions will be just a query of the latest balance of certain account. You have table A that stores just those information (account number, account balance, and account holder name).
Your account also have another 40 attributes, such as the customer address, tax number, id for mapping to other systems which is in table B.
A and B have one to one mapping.
In order to be able to retrieve the account balance fast, you may want to employ different index strategy (such as hash index) for the small table that has the account balance and account holder name.
The table that contains the other 40 attributes may reside in different table space or storage, employ different type of indexing, for example because you want to sort them by name, account number, branch id, etc. Your system can tolerate slow retrieval of these 40 attributes, while you need fast retrieval of your account balance query by account number.
Having all the 43 attributes in one table seems to be natural, and probably 'naturally slow' and unacceptable for just retrieving single account balance.
It makes sense to use 1-1 relationships to model an entity in the real world. That way, when more entities are added to your "world", they only also have to relate to the data that they pertain to (and no more).
That's the key really, your data (each table) should contain only enough data to describe the real-world thing it represents and no more. There should be no redundant fields as all make sense in terms of that "thing". It means that less data is repeated across the system (with the update issues that would bring!) and that you can retrieve individual data independently (not have to split/ parse strings for example).
To work out how to do this, you should research "Database Normalisation" (or Normalization), "Normal Form" and "first, second and third normal form". This describes how to break down your data. A version with an example is always helpful. Perhaps try this tutorial.
Often people are talking about a 1:0..1 relationship and call it a 1:1. In reality, a typical RDBMS cannot support a literal 1:1 relationship in any case.
As such, I think it's only fair to address sub-classing here, even though it technically necessitates a 1:0..1 relationship, and not the literal concept of a 1:1.
A 1:0..1 is quite useful when you have fields that would be exactly the same among several entities/tables. For example, contact information fields such as address, phone number, email, etc. that might be common for both employees and clients could be broken out into an entity made purely for contact information.
A contact table would hold common information, like address and phone number(s).
So an employee table holds employee specific information such as employee number, hire date and so on. It would also have a foreign key reference to the contact table for the employee's contact info.
A client table would hold client information, such as an email address, their employer name, and perhaps some demographic data such as gender and/or marital status. The client would also have a foreign key reference to the contact table for their contact info.
In doing this, every employee would have a contact, but not every contact would have an employee. The same concept would apply to clients.
Just a few samples from past projects:
a TestRequests table can have only one matching Report. But depending on the nature of the Request, the fields in the Report may be totally different.
in a banking project, an Entities table hold various kind of entities: Funds, RealEstateProperties, Companies. Most of those Entities have similar properties, but Funds require about 120 extra fields, while they represent only 5% of the records.
I'm really looking for something very similar to the way SO is setup where a few different kinds of things can be voted on (questions AND answers). What kind of DB schema, generally, could I use to support voting on many different kinds of objects?
Would I have a single Vote table that would have references to other objects in the database? Or do I have to have or should have a separate vote table for each of the objects I would like to vote on.
Kyle,
it's a bit hard to understand what exactly you need...but here's my 2 cents:
I assume you want for each vote to store when it was voted, by whom (maybe IP address or user name), I would go for a single Voting table solution. I also assume that when you query an entity from the DB (question, answer, etc.), you also want to join this table, and it's not likely to have a query solely on the voting table.
in this case, you can use 2 columns on the voting table - one for the type of object that was voted, and one to hold the id of that object. that way you can join the voting table to any other query by specifying the type of the object.
I think managing all your votes in a single table will make your domain simpler then spreading it and creating a voting table for each entity. in this single voting table solution you only need to maintain the list of types of entities (probably using a small dictionary table).
there is also a consideration of performance. if you expect millions of votes, that single table will grow much more quickly than a set of separate tables. it might be a consideration against it. also take care to not make it a bottleneck if there are many concurrent read/writes to it.
I am currently in the process of looking at a restructure our contact management database and I wanted to hear peoples opinions on solving the problem of a number of contact types having shared attributes.
Basically we have 6 contact types which include Person, Company and Position # Company.
In the current structure all of these have an address however in the address table you must store their type in order to join to the contact.
This consistent requirement to join on contact type gets frustrating after a while.
Today I stumbled across a post discussing "Table Inheritance" (http://www.sqlteam.com/article/implementing-table-inheritance-in-sql-server).
Basically you have a parent table and a number of sub tables (in this case each contact type). From there you enforce integrity so that a sub table must have a master equivalent where it's type is defined.
The way I see it, by this method I would no longer need to store the type in tables like address, as the id is unique across all types.
I just wanted to know if anybody had any feelings on this method, whether it is a good way to go, or perhaps alternatives?
I'm using SQL Server 05 & 08 should that make any difference.
Thanks
Ed
I designed a database just like the link you provided suggests. The case was to store the data for many different technical reports. The number of report types is undefined and will probably grow to about 40 different types.
I created one master report table, that has an autoincrement primary key. That table contains all common information like customer, testsite, equipmentid, date etc.
Then I have one table for each report type that contains the spesific information relating to that report type. That table have the same primary key as the master and references the master as well.
My idea for splitting this into different tables with a 1:1 relation (which normally would be a no-no) was to avoid getting one single table with a huge number of columns, that gets very difficult to maintain as your constantly adding columns.
My design with table inheritance gave me segmented data and expandability without beeing difficult to maintain. The only thing I had to do was to write special a special save method to handle writing to two tables automatically. So far I'm very happy with the design and haven't really found any drawbacks, except for a little more complicated save method.
Google on "gen-spec relational modeling". You'll find a lot of articles discussing exactly this pattern. Some of them focus on table design, while others focus on an object oriented approach.
Table inheritance pops up in a few of them.
I know this won't help much now, but initially it may have been better to have an Entity table rather than 6 different contact types. Then each Entity could have as many addresses as necessary and there would be no need for type in the join.
You'll still have the problem that if you want the sub-type fields and you have only the master contact, you'll have to know what table to go looking at - or else join to all of them. But otherwise this is a workable solution to a common problem.
Another possibility (fairly similar in structure, but different in how you think of it) is to simply put all your contacts into one table. Then for the more specific fields (birthday say for people and department for position#company) create separate tables that are associated with that contact.
Contact Table
--------------
Name
Phone Number
Address Table
-------------
Street / state, etc
ContactId
ContactBirthday Table
--------------
Birthday
ContactId
Departments Table
-----------------
Department
ContactId
It requires a different way of thinking of things though - instead of thinking of people vs. companies, you think of the various functional requirements for the task at hand - if you want to send out birthday cards, get all the contacts that have birthdays associated with them, etc..
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you should rethink your normalization strategy (as you seem to be lucky enough to be able to rethink your schema quite fundamentally). If you typically store an address for each contact, then your contact table should have the address fields in it. Alternatively if the address is stored per company then the address should be stored in the company table and your contacts linked to that company.
If your contacts only have one address, or one (or even 3, just not 'many') instance of the other fields, think about rationalizing them into a single table. In my experience having a few null fields is a far better alternative than needing left joins to data you aren't sure exists.
Fortunately for anyone who vehemently disagrees with me you did ask for opinions! :) IMHO you should only normalize when you really need to. Where you are rethinking schemas, denormalization should be considered at every opportunity.
When you have a 7th type, you'll have to create another table.
I'm going to try this approach. Yes, you have to create new tables when you have a new type, but since this table will probably have different columns, you'll end up doing this anyway if you don't use this scheme.
If the tables that inherit the master don't differentiate much from one another, I'd recommend you try another approach.
May I suggest that we just add a Type table. Ie a person has an address, name etc then the student, teacher as each use case presents its self we have a PersonType table that has an entry from the person table to n types and the subsequent new tables teacher, alien, singer as the system eveolves...