So I've done extensive searching on this and I can't seem to find a good solution that actually applies to my situation.
I have a list of projects in a table, then a list of people. I want to assign multiple people to one project. Seems pretty common. Obviously, I can't make multiple columns on my projects table for each person, as the people will change fairly frequently.
I need to display this information very quickly in a continuous list of projects (the ultimate way would be a multiple-select combobox as a listbox is too tall, but they don't exist outside of the dreaded lookup fields)
I can think of two ways:
- Store multiple employee IDs delimited by commas in one field in my projects table (I know this goes against good database design). Would require some code to store and retrieve the data.
- Have a separate table for employees assigned to projects (ID, ProjectID, EmployeeID). One to many relationship between projects table and this new table. One to many relationship between employees table and this new table. If a project has 3 employees assigned, it would store 3 records in this table. It seems a bit odd joining both tables in this way, and would also require code to get it to store and retrieve into a control like the one mentioned above).
Does anyone know if there is a better way (including displaying in an easy control) or how you usually tackle this problem?
The usual way to tackle this problem would be with a Junction Table. This is what you describe where you have a separate table maybe called EmployeeProject which has an EmployeeProjectID(PK), EmployeeID(FK) and ProjectID(FK).
In this way you model a Many-to-Many relationship where each project can have many employees involved and each employee can be involved in many projects. It's not actually all that difficult to do the SQL etc. required to pull the information back together again for display.
I would definitely stay away from storing comma-delimited values as this becomes significantly more complicated when you want to display or manipulate the data.
There's a good guide here: http://en.tekstenuitleg.net/articles/software/create-a-many-to-many-relationship-in-access but if you google "many to many junction table" or similar, there are thousands of pages/articles about implementation.
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
Consider we have a database that has a table, which is a record of a sale. You sell both products and services, so you also have a product and service table.
Each sale can either be a product or a service, which leaves the options for designing the database to be something like the following:
Add columns for each type, ie. add Service_id and Product_id to Invoice_Row, both columns of which are nullable. If they're both null, it's an ad-hoc charge not relating to anything, but if one of them is satisfied then it is a row relating to that type.
Add a weird string/id based system, for instance: Type_table, Type_id. This would be a string/varchar and integer respectively, the former would contain for example 'Service', and the latter the id within the Service table. This is obviously loose coupling and horrible, but is a way of solving it so long as you're only accessing the DB from code, as such.
Abstract out the concept of "something that is chargeable" for with new tables, of which Product and Service now are an abstraction of, and on the Invoice_Row table you would link to something like ChargeableEntity_id. However, the ChargeableEntity table here would essentially be redundant as it too would need some way to link to an abstract "backend" table, which brings us all the way back around to the same problem.
Which way would you choose, or what are the other alternatives to solving this problem?
What you are essentially asking is how to achieve polymorphism in a relational database. There are many approaches (as you yourself demonstrate) to this problem. One solution is to use "table per class" inheritance. In this setup, there will be a parent table (akin to your "chargeable item") that contains a unique identifier and the fields that are common to both products and services. There will be two child tables, products and goods: Each will contain the unique identifier for that entity and the fields specific to it.
One benefit to this approach over others is you don't end up with one table with many nullable columns that essentially becomes a dumping ground to describe anything ("schema-less").
One downside is as your inheritance hierarchy grows, the number of joins needed to grab all the data for an entity also grows.
I believe it depends on use case(s).
You could put the common columns in one table and put product and service specific columns in its own tables.Here the deal is that you need to join stuff.
Else if you maintain two separate tables, one for Product and another for Sale. You use application logic to determine which table to insert into. And getting all sales will essentially mean , union of getting all products and getting all sale.
I would go for approach 2 personally to avoid joins and inserting into two tables whenever a sale is made.
I'm developing an Asset management application.
Looking through the excel tracker that was being used previously, I was able to identify some attributes that were common to all categories of assets (basically non-technical attributes such as Purchase Order No. , Warranty Info etc.) for which I think I will make a separate table.
But when storing technical-attributes, there are many categories of assets for which I need only one or two additional attributes to be stored.
Should a make a single table for all these attributes and store NULLs wherever applicable or should I make a separate table each category containing just the asset ID and the addition columns? Which approach is better/more pragmatic?
Is cluttering the database with too many tables ok? I have around 10 such categories.
There are 3 known approaches to this:
Single table
In this model, you have a single table with all known columns, and allow them to be null for types that don't have that attribute. This gives you a simple database, and fairly simple SQL, but doesn't allow support for common features that relational databases give you, like insisting on non-null columns for a data type, or creating unique indices where that makes sense.
It also tends to lead to messy SQL, with developers forgetting over time what columns mean, so you could get a column being used for multiple purposes.
It does make it easy to join to other tables - so if you have an asset and a purchase related to that asset, the "purchase" table joins to the "asset" table on "assetID".
Table per subtype
In this case, you build a table for each subtype, and enforce the data characteristics of that subtype with not null, unique etc.
This creates a clearer separation of subtypes, and is less likely to degrade into big ball of mud, but makes joins very hard - to join from "purchase" to "asset", you have to know which table holds that particular asset.
Common table for common fields, table per subtype
In this model, you have a single table for the fields that are common between subtypes - you say you've identified this already - and have further tables for each subtype to store the unique attributes.
This solves the joining problem between "asset" and "purchase", keeps the data pretty self-describing.
It does mean client logic needs to implement the "join asset_master to asset_subtype" issue.
I prefer option 3 - it's the best trade-off between maintainability and managability.
Databases should be able to handle lots of columns and lots of tables, so both approaches should work from that perspective.
If you don't have any additional requirements, I'd use the single table approach. It is the easiest, and the only thing you are loosing is the ability to put not null constraints on the fields that exist only form some categories
I have a table that has a bunch of fields. The fields can be broken into logical groups - like a job's project manager info. The groupings themselves aren't really entity candidates as they don't and shouldn't have their own PKs.
For now, to group them, the fields have prefixes (PmFirstName for example) but I'm considering breaking them out into multiple tables with 1:1 relations on the main table.
Is there anything I should watch out for when I do this? Is this just a poor choice?
I can see that maybe my queries will get more complicated with all the extra joins but that can be mitigated with views right? If we're talking about a table with less than 100k records is this going to have a noticeable effect on performance?
Edit: I'll justify the non-entity candidate thoughts a little further. This information is entered by our user base. They don't know/care about each other. So its possible that the same user will submit the same "projectManager name" or whatever which, at this point, wouldn't be violating any constraint. Its for us to determine later on down the pipeline if we wanna correlate entries from separate users. If I were to give these things their own key they would grow at the same rate the main table grows - since they are essentially part of the same entity. At no pt is a user picking from a list of available "project managers".
So, given the above, I don't think they are entities. But maybe not - if you have further thoughts please post.
I don't usually use 1 to 1 relations unless there is a specific performance reason for it. For example storing an infrequently used large text or BLOB type field in a separate table.
I would suspect that there is something else going on here though. In the example you give - PmFirstName - it seems like maybe there should be a single pm_id relating to a "ProjectManagers" or "Employees" table. Are you sure none of those groupings are really entity candidates?
To me, they smell unless for some rows or queries you won't be interested in the extra columns. e.g. if for a large portion of your queries you are not selecting the PmFirstName columns, or if for a large subset of rows those columns are NULL.
I like the smells tag.
I use 1 to 1 relationships for inheritance-like constructs.
For example, all bonds have some basic information like CUSIP, Coupon, DatedDate, and MaturityDate. This all goes in the main table.
Now each type of bond (Treasury, Corporate, Muni, Agency, etc.) also has its own set of columns unique to it.
In the past we would just have one incredibly wide table with all that information. Now we break out the type-specific info into separate tables, which gives us much better performance.
For now, to group them, the fields have prefixes (PmFirstName for example) but I'm considering breaking them out into multiple tables with 1:1 relations on the main table.
Create a person table, every database needs this. Then in your project table have a column called PMKey which points to the person table.
Why do you feel that the group of fields are not an entity candidates? If they are not then why try to identify them with a prefix?
Either drop the prefixes or extract them into their own table.
It is valuable splitting them up into separate tables if they are separate logical entities that could be used elsewhere.
So a "Project Manager" could be 1:1 with all the projects currently, but it makes sense that later you might want to be able to have a Project Manager have more than one project.
So having the extra table is good.
If you have a PrimaryFirstName,PrimaryLastName,PrimaryPhone, SecondaryFirstName,SecondaryLastName,SEcondaryPhone
You could just have a "Person" table with FirstName, LastName, Phone
Then your original Table only needs "PrimaryId" and "SecondaryId" columns to replace the 6 columns you previously had.
Also, using SQL you can split up filegroups and tables across physical locations.
So you could have a POST table, and a COMMENT Table, that have a 1:1 relationship, but the COMMENT table is located on a different filegroup, and on a different physical drive with more memory.
1:1 does not always smell. Unless it has no purpose.