I would like your opinion. I have a table with 120 VARCHAR fields where I will have to hire about 1,000 records per month for at least 10 years, with a total number of 240,000 records.
I could divide the fields into multiple tables but I'd rather keep it that way. Do you think I will have problems in the future?
Thank you
Well, if the data of the columns is following a certain logic, keep it flat. Which means that I would let it that way. Otherwise separate it into multiple tables. I depents on your data.
I worked once worked with medical data where one table contained over 100 columns, but all these columns where needed to get a diagnostic result. I don't remember, what exactly it was, because I worked with that data set some years ago. But in that case it would make it more complicated, if the columns would be separated into multiple columns. Logically the data of each column served a certain purpose so it was easier to have them all in the same place (the table).
If you put the columns all together just to be lazy, so that you have to call the table once, I would recommend to separate the columns into different tables to make it more comfortable to work with, and to make the database schema more understandable.
Related
I am attempting to merge data from various sources into an existing data model. Each source uses different types of IDs (such as GUID, Salesforce IDs, etc.). For example, if I were to merge data from two different sources, the table may look like the following (where the first two SalesPersonIDs are GUID IDs and the second two are Salesforce IDs):
Is this a bad practice? I could also imagine a table where each ID type was its own column and could be left blank if it was not applicable. Something like the following:
I apologize, I am a bit new to this. Thanks in advance for any insight, I greatly appreciate it!
The big roles of an ID column are to act as a key connecting data in different tables, and to help indexing - quickly find rows so your queries run fast.
The second solution wouldn't work well for these purposes, and will lead to big headaches in queries: every time you want to group by the ID, you'll have to combine the info from 2 columns in some way, hopefully getting a correct unique result every time.
On the one hand, all you might ever need from an ID is for it to be unique. The first solution might be fine this respect - but are you sure you'll never, ever get data about one SalesPerson from more than one source?
I'd suggest keeping all the IDs in one column, and adding a column to say what kind of ID this is. At least this way, you won't lose any information and can do other things in the future.
One thing you might consider is making a separate table of SalesPerson with all their possible IDs, and have this keyed to other (Sales?) data by a unique ID used only in your database.
I have like about 10 tables where are records with date ranges and some value belongin to the date range.
Each table has some meaning.
For example
rates
start_date DATE
end_date DATE
price DOUBLE
availability
start_date DATE
end_date DATE
availability INT
and then table dates
day DATE
where are dates for each day for 2 years ahead.
Final result is joining these 10 tables to dates table.
The query takes a bit longer, because there are some other joins and subqueries.
I have been thinking about creating one bigger table containing all the 10 tables data for each day, but final table would have about 1.5M - 2M records.
From testing it seems to be quicker (0.2s instead of about 1s) to search in this table instead of joining tables and searching in the joined result.
Is there any real reason why it should be bad idea to have a table with that many records?
The final table would look like
day DATE
price DOUBLE
availability INT
Thank you for your comments.
This is a complicated question. The answer depends heavily on usage patterns. Presumably, most of the values do not change every day. So, you could be vastly increasing the size of the database.
On the other hand, something like availability may change every day, so you already have a large table in your database.
If your usage patterns focused on one table at a time, I'd be tempted to say "leave well-enough alone". That is, don't make a change if it ain't broke. If your usage involved multiple updates to one type of record, I'd be inclined to leave them in separate tables (so locking for one type of value does not block queries on other types).
However, your usage suggests that you are combining the tables. If so, I think putting them in one row per day per item makes sense. If you are getting successive days at one time, you may find that having separate days in the underlying table greatly simplifies your queries. And, if your queries are focused on particular time frames, your proposed structure will keep the relevant data in the cache, giving room for better performance.
I appreciate what Bohemian says. However, you are already going to the lowest level of granularity and seeing that it works for you. I think you should go ahead with the reorganization.
I went down this road once and regretted it.
The fact that you have a projection of millions of rows tells me that dates from one table don't line up with dates from another table, leading to creating extra boundaries for some attributes because being in one table all attributes must share the same boundaries.
The problem I encountered was that the business changed and suddenly I had a lot more combinations to deal with and the number of rows blew right out, slowing queries significantly. The other problem was keeping the data up to date - my "super" table was calculated from the separate tables when ever they changed.
I found that keeping them separate and moving the logic into the app layer worked for me.
The data I was dealing with was almost exactly the same as yours except I had only 3
tables: I had availability, pricing and margin. The fact was that the 3 were unrelated, so date ranges never aligned, leasing to lots of artificial rows in the big table.
I have a question about my DB design.
I want to save some information about province and the country. At the first I thought that I can save all of this information in one table (General_info). Then for each record in this table; values of columns, which belongs to country should be repeated.
Another idea is to separate this table into two tables (General_info_country and general_info_province). The first table with only 3 columns and the other with more than 10.
What should I do? Which approach is more efficient?
The biggest issue with the first approach (one big table) is that if any one country information changes, you need to update multiple rows, meaning you might make a mistake and end up with inconsistent information.
The second approach is normalized and considered a better relational design.
If the relation is one to one and will remain one to one, then you can go both ways.
But if it is one to many then of course you must split them, and have the foreign key in the many part
In the case where the relation is one to one the question becomes, how frequent are you going to use the all of the attributes ?
If you are going to use both tables together frequently then i suggest you do not split them because you are going to need to join them a lot in your queries.
But if you are going to be using the 2 tales alone rather then using the info from both tables together then splitting them could save you some time.
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.
In a recent project I have seen a tables from 50 to 126 columns.
Should a table hold less columns per table or is it better to separate them out into a new table and use relationships? What are the pros and cons?
Generally it's better to design your tables first to model the data requirements and to satisfy rules of normalization. Then worry about optimizations like how many pages it takes to store a row, etc.
I agree with other posters here that the large number of columns is a potential red flag that your table is not properly normalized. But it might be fine in this case. We can't tell from your description.
In any case, splitting the table up just because the large number of columns makes you uneasy is not the right remedy. Is this really causing any defects or performance bottleneck? You need to measure to be sure, not suppose.
A good rule of thumb that I've found is simply whether or not a table is growing rows as a project continues,
For instance:
On a project I'm working on, the original designers decided to include site permissions as columns in the user table.
So now, we are constantly adding more columns as new features are implemented on the site. obviously this is not optimal. A better solution would be to have a table containing permissions and a join table between users and permissions to assign them.
However, for other more archival information, or tables that simply don't have to grow or need to be cached/minimize pages/can be filtered effectively, having a large table doesn't hurt too much as long as it doesn't hamper maintenance of the project.
At least that is my opinion.
Usually excess columns points to improper normalization, but it is hard to judge without having some more details about your requirements.
I can picture times when it might be necessary to have this many, or more columns. Examples would be if you had to denormalize and cache data - or for a type of row with many attributes. I think the keys are to avoid select * and make sure you are indexing the right columns and composites.
If you had an object detailing the data in the database, would you have a single object with 120 fields, or would you be looking through the data to extract data that is logically distinguishable? You can inline Address data with Customer data, but it makes sense to remove it and put it into an Addresses table, even if it keeps a 1:1 mapping with the Person.
Down the line you might need to have a record of their previous address, and by splitting it out you've removed one major problem refactoring your system.
Are any of the fields duplicated over multiple rows? I.e., are the customer's details replicated, one per invoice? In which case there should be one customer entry in the Customers table, and n entries in the Invoices table.
One place where you need to not fix broken normalisation is where you have a facts table (for auditing, etc) where the purpose is to aggregate data to run analyses on. These tables are usually populated from the properly normalised tables however (overnight for example).
It sounds like you have potential normalization issues.
If you really want to, you can create a new table for each of those columns (a little extreme) or group of related columns, and join it on the ID of each record.
It could certainly affect performance if people are running around with a lot of "Select * from GiantTableWithManyColumns"...
Here are the official statistics for SQL Server 2005
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
Keep in mind these are the maximums, and are not necessarily the best for usability.
Think about splitting the 126 columns into sections.
For instance, if it is some sort of "person" table
you could have
Person
ID, AddressNum, AddressSt, AptNo, Province, Country, PostalCode, Telephone, CellPhone, Fax
But you could separate that into
Person
ID, AddressID, PhoneID
Address
ID, AddressNum, AddressSt, AptNo, Province, Country, PostalCode
Phone
ID, Telephone, Cellphone, fax
In the second one, you could also save yourself from data replication by having all the people with the same address have the same addressId instead of copying the same text over and over.
The UserData table in SharePoint has 201 fields but is designed for a special purpose.
Normal tables should not be this wide in my opinion.
You could probably normalize some more. And read some posts on the web about table optimization.
It is hard to say without knowing a little bit more.
Well, I don't know how many columns are possible in sql but one thing for which I am very sure is that when you design table, each table is an entity means that each table should contain information either about a person, a place, an event or an object. So till in my life I don't know that a thing may have that much data/information.
Second thing that you should notice is that that there is a method called normalization which is basically used to divide data/information into sub section so that one can easily maintain database. I think this will clear your idea.
I'm in a similar position. Yes, there truly is a situation where a normalized table has, like in my case, about 90, columns: a work flow application that tracks many states that a case can have in addition to variable attributes to each state. So as each case (represented by the record) progresses, eventually all columns are filled in for that case. Now in my situation there are 3 logical groupings (15 cols + 10 cols + 65 cols). So do I keep it in one table (index is CaseID), or do I split into 3 tables connected by one-to-one relationship?
Columns in a table1 (merge publication)
246
Columns in a table2 (SQL Server snapshot or transactional publication)
1,000
Columns in a table2 (Oracle snapshot or transactional publication)
995
in a table, we can have maximum 246 column
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
A table should have as few columns as possible.....
in SQL server tables are stored on pages, 8 pages is an extent
in SQL server a page can hold about 8060 bytes, the more data you can fit on a page the less IOs you have to make to return the data
You probably want to normalize (AKA vertical partitioning) your database