I am having some trouble getting my head around cardinality in ER diagramming. I am linking an example I found to help me explain where I am getting confused.
http://www.postgresqltutorial.com/download/dvd-rental-er-diagram/#
Question 1:
The cardinality between Customer and Rental is 0:1. So that means a customer can take out zero or one rentals. I would have thought the customer would be able to take out 1 or many rentals (1:*) because a customer means that they are taking out a rental (can't be a customer if you are not spending any money) and that a customer could take out many rentals.
Question 2:
Also for the Staff to Payment relationship. Staff to Payment is 0:1 cardinality. I would have thought that a staff would make at least one payment because payments are necessary for the rental transaction. And then in reverse (one payment can be made by one and only payment): just to clarify this is because logically a payment is a transaction that only be made by one person at a time?
I agree with you. The same thing occurs on both sides of film_category, which I believe represents a many-to-many relationship based on the primary key. I think the diagram was drawn incorrectly.
Note that there's no such thing as 0:1 cardinality, but rather 0/1:1. Also, despite what the site and diagram says, the diagram is a table diagram and not an ER diagram. The notation used doesn't support or distinguish all the concepts from the Entity-Relationship model. Proper ER diagrams use Chen's notation or something equivalent.
Related
I need to create a data model for an education based application. The question I want to ask is is it better to make one junction table for two tables with many-to-many relation or create one big junction table to deal with all many-to-many relationships?
Say, I have student, tutor, subject, grade tables.
student and tutor are in many-to-many
tutor and subject are in many-to-many
tutor and grade are also in many-to-many
A student can have many tutors for one subject of one grade.
There can be many tutors for one subject of one grade.
A subject of one grade can be taught by many tutors.
Above are just a few examples of the relationships.
My question is how to model these relationships efficiently? Should I have one junction table for each of the relationships or should I combine them into one big bridge table?
So, if I have a class table as well, then from the big bridge table I can get for which class which tutor taught which subject of what grade along with other details of the class.
Let's assume the database is not yet electronic, but a good old filing cabinet instead.
Let's assume the database is for a library, and there are a couple of distinct sorts of "many-to-many info" to be maintained : authors to books (coauthored books have >1 author), readers to books, readers to readers, book availability in possibly multiple site locations of the library, ...
Would you ever think of stashing all those distinct sorts of information in one big filing cabinet ? Imagine what the consequences are for its users ? Sometimes you'll be prohibited to do something "readers to books" merely because someone else is right there doing something "readers to readers". If and when you manage to gain access and it's finally your turn do so something, say "authors to books", your work will be slowed down because all the "readers to books" stuff might come in between and you'll have to spend extra time merely skipping the unneeded stuff. If a "conversion operation" must be performed, say, a new kind of many-to-many stuff is discovered and must be integrated in the single filing cabinet, the entire database is inaccessible while the conversion operation is being performed (people adding filing cards of a color that wasn't yet in use). Etc. etc. . Those undesirable properties carry over almost 1-1 to the electronic equivalent.
As someone else put it : don't be afraid of tables. It's what a DBMS is good at.
EDIT
Brief : just keep it at one table per fact type, and abstain from making (/trying to discover) geeky abstractions like "they're all just properties" / "they're all just some many-to-many-relation" / ... . They're geeky because an end user/business user will not "see" it. And thus there is no business value in making them.
This is an problem about drawing ERD in one of my course:
A local startup is contemplating launching Jungle, a new one stop
online eCommerce site.
As they have very little experience designing and implementing
databases, they have asked you to help them design a database for
tracking their operations.
Jungle will sell a range of products, and they will need to track
information such as the name and price for each. In order to sell as
many products as possible, Jungle would like to display short reviews
alongside item listings. To conserve space, Jungle will only keep
track of the three most recent reviews for each product. Of course, if
an item is new (or just unpopular), it may have less than three
reviews stored.
Each time a customer buys something on Jungle, their details will be
stored for future access. Details collected by Jungle include
customer’s names, addresses, and phone numbers. Should a customer buy
multiple items on Jungle, their details can then be reused in future
transactions.
For maximum convenience, Jungle would also like to record credit card
information for its users. Details stored include the account and BSB
numbers. When a customer buys something on Jungle, the credit card
used is then linked to the transaction. Each customer may be linked to
one or more credit cards. However, as some users do not wish to have
their credit card details recorded, a customer may also be linked to
no credit cards. For such transactions, only the customer and product
will be recorded.
And this is the solution:
The problem is the Buys action connect with 3 others entities: Product, Customer, and Card. I find this very hard to read and understand.
Is an action involving more than 2 entities common in production? If it is, how should I understand and use it? Or if it's not, what is the better way of design for this problem?
While the bulk of relationships in practice are binary relationships, ternary and higher relationships are normal elements of the entity-relationship model. Some examples are supplies (supplier_id, product_id, region_id) or enrolled (student_id, course_id, semester_id). However, they often get converted into entity sets via the introduction of a surrogate identifier, due to dislike of composite keys or confusion with network data models in which only directed binary relationships are supported.
Reading cardinality indicators on non-binary relationships are a common source of confusion. See my answer to designing relationship between vehicle,customer and workshop in erd diagram for more info on how I handle this.
Your solution has some problems. First, Buys is indicated as an associative entity, but is used like a ternary relationship with an optional role. Neither is correct in my opinion. See my answer to When to use Associative entities? for an explanation of associative entities in the ER model.
Modeling a purchase transaction as a relationship is usually a mistake, since relationships are identified by the (keys of the) entities they relate. If (CustomerID, ProductID) is identifying, then a customer can buy a product only once, and only one product per transaction. Adding a date/time into the relationship's key is better, but still problematic. Adding a surrogate identifier and turning it into a regular entity set is almost certainly the best course of action.
Second, the Crow's foot cardinality indicators are unclear. It looks like customers and products are optional in the Buys relationship, or even as if multiple customers could be involved in the same transaction. There are three different concepts involved here - optionality, participation and cardinality - which should preferably be indicated in different ways. See my answer to is optionality (mandatory, optional) and participation (total, partial) are same? for more on the topic.
A card is optional for a purchase transaction. From the description, it sounds as if cards may participate totally, meaning we won't store information about a card unless it's used in a transaction. Furthermore, only a single card can be related to each transaction.
A customer is required for a purchase transaction, and it sounds like customers may participate totally, meaning we won't store information about customers unless they purchase something. Only a single customer can be related to each transaction.
Products are required for a purchase transaction, and since we'll offer products before they're bought, products will participate partially in transactions. However, multiple products can be related to each transaction.
I would represent transactions for this problem with something like the following structure:
I'm not saying converting a ternary or higher relationship into an entity set is always the right thing to do, but in this case it is.
Physically, that would require two tables to represent (not counting Customer, Product, Card or ProductReview) since we can denormalize TransactionCustomer and TransactionCard into Transaction, but TransactionProduct is a many-to-many relationship and requires its own table (as do ternary and higher relationships).
Transaction (TransactionID PK, TransactionDateTime, CustomerID, CardID nullable)
TransactionProduct (TransactionID PK, ProductID PK, Quantity, Price)
Considering that this community has questions related to modeling databases, I am here seeking help.
I'm developing an auction system based on another one seen in a book I'm reading, and I'm having trouble. The problem context is the following:
In the auction system, a user makes product announcements (he/she defines a product). It defines
the product name, and the initial offer (called initial bid). The initial bid expresses the minimum amount to be offering. A
product only exists in the database when it is announced by a user. A
user defines a number of products, but a product belongs to a single
user.
Every product has an expiration date. When a certain date arrives, if
there are no offers for the product, it is not sold. If there are
offers for the product, the highest bidder wins the given product.
The offers have a creation date, and the amount offered. An offer is
made to a product from a user. A user can make different offers for
different products. A product can be offered by different users. The
same user can not do more than two offers for the same product.
This kind of context for me is easy to do. The problem is that I need to store a purchase. (I'm sorry, but I do not know if the word is that in English). I need a way to know which offer was successful, and actually "bought" a product. Relative to what was said, part of my Conceptual Model (Entity Relationship Diagram) is as follows:
I've tried to aggregate USERS with PRODUCTS, and make a connection/relationship between the aggregation and PRODUCTS, which would give me the PURCHASES event. When this was broken down (decomposed) I would have a table showing which offer bought what product.
Nevertheless, I would have a cardinality problem. This table would have two foreign keys. One for BIDS, and the other for PRODUCTS. This would allow an N-N relationship of these two, meaning that I could save more than one bid as the buyer of a product, or that the same bid could "buy" many products (so I say in the resulting PURCHASES table).
Am I not seeing something here? Can you guys help me with this? Thank you for reading, for your time, and patience. And if you need some more detail, please do not hesitate to ask.
EDIT
The property "Initial Bid" on the PRODUCTS entity is not a relationship.
This property represents a monetary value, a minimum amount that an offer must have to be given to a particular product.
You are approaching things backwards. First we determine a relevant application relationship, then we determine its properties. Given an application relationship and the possible application situations that can arise, only certain relationship/association sets/tables can arise. A purchase can have only one bid per product and one product per bid. So it is just a fact that the bid:product cardinality of PURCHASES is 1:1. Say so. This is so regardless of what other application relationships you wish to record. If it were a different application relationship between those entities then the cardinality might be different. Wait--USERS_PRODUCTS and BIDS form exactly such a pair of appplication relationships, with user:product being 1:0..N for the former and 0..N:0..N for the latter. Cardinality for each participant reflects (is a property of) the particular application relationship that a diamond represents.
Similarly: Foreign keys are properties of pairs of relationship/association sets/tables. Declaring them tells the DBMS to enforce that participant id values appear in entity sets/tables. Ie {bid} referencing BIDS and {product} referencing PRODUCTS. And candidate keys (of which one can be a primary key) are a property of a relationship set/table. It is the candidate keys of PURCHASES that lead to declaration of a constraint that enforces its cardinality. It isn't many:many on bid:product because "bid BID purchased product PRODUCT at price $AMOUNT on date DATE" isn't many:many on bid:product. Since either its bid or its product uniquely identify a purchase both {bid} and {product} are candidate keys.
Well... I tried to follow the given advices, and also tried to follow what I had previously spoken to do, using aggregation. It seems to me that the result is correct. Please observe:
Of course, a user makes offers for products. A user record can relate to multiple records in PRODUCTS. Likewise, a product can be offered by multiple users, and thus, a record in PRODUCTS can relate to multiple records on USERS. If I'm wrong on this, please correct me.
Looking at purchase, we see that a product is only properly purchased by a single bid. There is no way to say that a user buys a product, or a product purchase itself. It is through the relationship between USERS and PRODUCTS that an bid is created, and it is an bid that is able to buy a product. Thus, it is necessary to aggregate such a relationship, then set the purchase event.
We must remember that only one product can be purchased for a single bid. So here we have a cardinality of 1 to 1. Decomposition here will ask discretion of the data modeler.
By decomposing this Conceptual Model, we will have the following Logic Model:
Notice how relationships are respected with appropriate attributes. We can know who announced a product (the seller), and we can know what offers were made to it.
Now, as I said before, there is the PURCHASES relationship. As we have a relationship of 1 to 1 here, the rule tells us that we must choose which side the relationship will be interpreted (which entity shall keep such a relationship).
It is usually recommended to keep the relationship on the side that is likely in the future to become a "many". There is no need to do so in this case because it is clear that this relationship can not be preserved in a BIDS record. Therefore, we maintain such a relationship portrayed by "Winner Bid" on the PRODUCTS entity. As you can see, I set a unique identifier for BIDS. By defining the Physical Model, we have a surrogate key.
Well, I finish my answer here, but I think I can not consider it right yet. I would like someone to comment anything if possible. Thank you.
EDIT
I'd like to apologize. It seems that there was a mistake on my part. Well, I currently live in Brazil, and here we learn the ER-Diagram in a way that seems to me to be different from what many of you are used to. Until yesterday I've been answering some questions related to the subject here in the community, and I found odd certain different notations used. Only now I'm noticing that we are not speaking the same language. I believe it was embarrassing for me in a way. I'm sorry. Really, I'm sorry.
Oh, and one more thing (it may be interesting for someone):
The cardinality between BIDS and PRODUCTS is really wrong. It should
be 0 to 1 in both, as was said in the comments.
There are no relationships relating with relationships here. We have
what is called here (in my country, or in my past course)
"Aggregation" (Represented in the first drawing by the rectangle with clipped lines). The internal relationship (BIDS) when decomposed will
become an entity, and the relationship between BIDS and PRODUCTS is
made later. An aggregation says that a relationship needs to be resolved first so that it can relate with another entity. This creates a certain restriction, which may be necessary in certain business rules. It says that the joining of two entities define records that relate to records of another entity.
Certain relationships do not necessarily need to be named. Once you
break down certain types of relationships, there is no need (it's
optional) to name them (between relations N to N), especially if new
relationship does not arise from these. Of course, if I were to name the white relationships presented, we then would have USER'S BIDS (between USERS and BIDS), and PRODUCT'S BIDS (between BIDS and PRODUCTS).
With respect to my study material, it's all in portuguese, and I believe you will not understand, I do not know. But here's one of the books I read during my past classes:
ISBN: 978-85-365-0252-6
Title: PROJETO de BANCO de DADOS Uma Visão Prática
Authors: Felipe Machado, Mauricio Abreu
Publishing company: EDITORA ÉRICA
COVER:
LINK:
http://www.editorasaraiva.com.br/produtos/show/isbn:9788536502526/titulo:projeto-de-banco-de-dados-uma-visao-pratica-edicao-revisada-e-atualizada/
Well... What do I do now? Haha... I do not know what to do. I'll leave my question here. If someone with the same method that I can help me, I'll be grateful. Thank you.
To record the winning bid requires a functional dependency Product ID -> Bid ID. This could be implemented as one or more nullable columns (since not all products have been purchased yet) in the Products table, or better in a separate table (Purchases) using Product ID as primary key.
I'm learning database this semester. The homework on e-r model really confuses me.
The homework is drawing the e-r diagram about a vegetable market: A Vegetable Market has a collection of numbered stalls. Each stall has a name (unique) and sells at least one kind of vegetables (each kind of which has a name). Each stall sells each vegetable at its own particular price. Each farm grows some (at least one, but not all) of the vegetables, but a vegetable must be grown by at least one farm. Each farm has one name (unique) and address. Each stall buys each vegetable from only one farm at a particular price they have agreed.
My question is that how to describe the constraint "(at least one, but not all)" in the requirement?
Another question is that since vegetables don't have primary key or discriminator, should they be treated as entities? Or should they be treated as somethings else like attributes?
Here's my answer:
(source: rrimg.com)
Ad.1
As far as I know it is impossible to place on a ERD diagram information like at least one, but not all, I would simply mark the relationship as one or more, which is possible. The only thing that comes to my mind is placing an appropriate comment, stating that requirement.
Ad. 2
Yes, vegetable in my opinion should be represented as a separated entity. If you wanted to place it as an attribute, you coud do this as an attribute of entity "Farm_grows", but you will not be able to preserve uniqueness, you will have to have some key anywas, and finally the worst thing is that, it wouldn't be 3NF.
My propositions is on the below diagram - unfortunatelly I do not have a tool that supports your notation (I know it would be possible to do it in Visio, but you shouldn't have any problems translating my notation to yours).
The difference in comparison to yours is that I have one relationship for SELL and BUY, which is STALL_VEGETABLE. Why is that so? Because of this requirement:
"Each stall buys each vegetable from only one farm at a particular price they have agreed."
My model preserves that the Stall sells only those vegetables, that it bought, and also it because stall_name and vegetable_name are withing PK, it is impossible for Stall to buy one vegetable from different farms - your model allows that.
Hi I am doing an assignment on ER modelling and there is a part that I'm stuck on, here is an extract:
Patient is a person who is either admitted to the hospital or is registered in an outpatient program. Each patient has a patient number (ID), name, dob, and tele. Resident patients have a Date Admitted. Each outpatient is scheduled for zero or more return visits, which have data and comments. Each time a patient is admitted to the hospital or registered as an outpatient, they receive a new patient number.
I can't do the last section bolded. I have attempted the question: http://tinypic.com/r/358dus9/4
Also if anyone can check if I've done it correctly, would be highly appreciated thanks!
Sometimes assignments also contain "information" that is pretty much immaterial.
The purpose is precisely to learn to filter out the 'real' information from the noise.
(With the caveat that there are dozens and dozens of ER dialects, and each has its own peculiarities,) ER does not have a way to express the information that "attribute x in entity y is to be autogenerated by the system.". For this reason, and as far as the actual ER modeling is concerned, your bold phrase is just noise.
I agree with Erwin on this one. I'll add that not having to have a consistent structure for the patient means that you don't have to create another table for the patient, you can just put it into the ER case directly.
Generally, this is a bad practice however. In reality, you would still have a regular patients table with identifiable patients over several visits. Then again, this is a class and as we all know, the #1 rule is not to disobey the teacher (no matter how insane it is). The real lesson here is to learn how to take requirements, have them clarify the requirements, explain the consequences if they don't follow your advice on how the data will be modeled and then go ahead with whatever they say as they have the final say as the client.
Depends on the course that you're taking, as well. Microsoft SQL Server/SQL Express has the autonumber setting possible, while Oracle does not feature this (although it's accomplished through this). Insofar as the modeling is concerned, there is no way to model that requirement specifically, as far as I know.
Entity-relationship diagrams are used to model the relationships and the data itself as it exists. What you're looking for is more of a UML approach to describing the process in which it has data created for that field.