i'm needing some help with setting up the proper relationships for my project.
The best way I can compare it is by considering a student timetable.
I need a user to be able to have many classes, and tasks within each of those classes. However, these tasks should also be linked to the user directly. I want to be able to call $user->tasks() and get all the tasks, rather than going through each $user->period.... The user has many periods, each period has many tasks, but the tasks should belong to user directly.
Any suggestions? Would i need to employ polymorphic relations in my table structure?
Thanks in advance.
It seems like what you need is the "Has Many Through" relationship.
From the docs
The "has-many-through" relationship provides a convenient short-cut
for accessing distant relations via an intermediate relation. For
example, a Country model might have many Post models through an
intermediate User model. In this example, you could easily gather all
blog posts for a given country.
In your case, it can be described as "the user has many tasks through period".
Related
I have 4 entities: Event, Message, Flow and Document.
Event table stores a limited (seeded) number of records. Message has many events and each event can be related to many messages. The name event_message was given for the intermediate table.
As you can see, the convention for intermediate tables are: {tablename}_{tablename}.
Flow table stores a limited (seeded) number of records. Message has many flows and each flow can be related to many messages. The name flow_message was given for the intermediate table.
A document is created on each relation between Flow and Message (each record on flow_message).
The issue starts here:
Each event on a message has different documents by flow. It means: for each new record on intermediate table flow_message, each record on intermediate event_message has a new document related.
To solve this, I created an intermediate table between event_message and flow_message named: event_message_flow_message.
Is this correct (in some conventional way)? Is this modeling correct?
How to proper model and naming the intermediate table derivative by two others intermediate tables?
I also wish there was some convention. Since I do not know any official convention, I invented mine. The important thing is to respect the convention you choose.
So I would change the event_message_flow_message to rel_eventmessage_flowmessage.
But for me your convention is pretty nice.
It's hard to make a recommendation because your model seems a bit odd to me. You have 1:1 relationships between both DOCUMENT and FLOW_MESSAGE and DOCUMENT and EVENT_MESSAGE_FLOW_MESSAGE. It's hard to reconcile this in my mind with the many to one relationships to EVENT_MESSAGE_FLOW_MESSAGE. If you're relationships to DOCUMENT are really 1:1 (mandatory), then why keep documents in a separate table?
To address your question about table naming: I would argue that the {table}_{table} convention for naming intersection tables is not a best practice but rather a fallback for cases where you can't think of a better name.
The best practice is for names of tables to reflect the business name of the thing which is recorded / described by the data in the table. It's not always possible to do this, especially for intersection tables. Intersection tables represent many-to-many relationships, and relationships are often difficult to describe with a noun.
In your case, I don't think that your convention is actually making things especially easy to understand. I'd probably try to simplify with something like MESSAGE_DOCUMENT or even just DOCUMENT - since these seem to be 1:1 related in any case.
I have to implement a testing platform. My database needs the following tables: Students, Teachers, Admins, Personnel and others. I would like to know if it's more efficient to have the FirstName and LastName in each of these tables, or to have another table, Persons, and each of the other table to be linked to this one with PersonID.
Personally, I like it this way, although trickier to implement, because I think it's cleaner, especially if you look at it from the object-oriented point of view. Would this add an unnecessary overhead to the database?
Don't know if it helps to mention I would like to use SQL Server and ADO.NET Entity Framework.
As you've explicitly mentioned OO and that you're using EntityFramework, perhaps its worth approaching the problem instead from how the framework is intended to work - rather than just building a database structure and then trying to model it?
Entity Framework Code First Inheritance : Table Per Hierarchy and Table Per Type is a nice introduction to the various strategies that you could pick from.
As for the note on adding unnecessary overhead to the database - I wouldn't worry about it just yet. EF is generally about getting a product built more rapidly and as it has to cope with a more general case, doesn't always produce the most efficient SQL. If the performance is a problem after your application is built, working and correct you can revisit and fix up the most inefficient stuff then.
If there is a person overlap between the mentioned tables, then yes, you should separate them out into a Persons table.
If you are only tracking what role each Person has (i.e. Student vs. Teacher etc) then you might consider just having the following three tables: Persons, Roles, and a bridge table PersonRoles.
On the other hand, if each role has it's own unique fields, then you should carry on as you are and leave each of these tables separate with a foreign key of PersonID.
If the attributes (i.e. First Name, Last Name, Gender etc) of these entities (i.e. Students, Teachers, Admins and Personnel) are exactly the same then you could just make a single table for all the entities with PersonType or Role attribute added to distinguish each person's role. However, if the entities has a lot of different attributes then it would be better that you create separate tables otherwise you will have normalization problem.
Yes that is a very bad way of structuring a DB. The DB structure should be designed based on the Normalizations.
Please check the normalization forms.
U should avoid the duplicate data as much as possible, else the queries will become slower.
And the main problem is when u r trying to get data that is associated with more than one or two tables.
I'm newbie to designing class diagrams.
As my application works as REST API, I would like to use DTO-DAO design patterns. For user registration module, DB contains 3 tables for user signon, profile and address.
Do I need to create 3 DTOs and corresponding DAOs to insert/update user signon, profile and address?
If so, what if I only one table is created instead of three tables and dropped two tables in future?
Whatever design pattern you follow, data modelling is entirely upto you.Your design pattern should be based on your data modelling and your need. Not that,your data model will depend on the design pattern but on your need
You can create whatever dto objects you like. However both your database design and your dto design is driven by the concepts in your system (user/company/address etc) this often called the domain.
You'll often find that the two are very similar, after all they both represent the same domain!
As to whether you need different dtos for different calls that really depends on you. Do you need a different class to represent an insert/update call? What's the difference? Often the update has an id (whereas the insert hasn't had one assigned yet). So why not have two where the update inherits from the insert but adds the id property?
Delete dtos, you can do these as either an update or just as an id. After all why bother to populate an entire object you're about tot delete. Personally I'd just say
DeleteUser(int id);
Much easier!
I am working on a project (based in Django although that's not really relevant to my question) and I am struggling to work out the best way to represent the data models.
I have the four following models:
User,
Client,
Meeting,
Location
User and Client have a many-to-many relationship through the Meeting model. The Meeting model has a one-to-one relationship with the Location model.
Meetings will take place at either:
The address defined in the User (or UserProfile) model
The address defined in the Client model.
Some other location which has to be defined at a later date.
I'm struggling to work out the best way to store the Location data in order to make it as clean and reusable as possible.
I considered making Location as a field in the Meetings model rather than a model in its own right - although this could also lead to redundant data if lots of Meetings are created at the same location, so this is probably a non-starter.
I could automatically create Location records for each User and Client that gets created and use a generic relationship between the relevant records, however, I understand that this can lead to inefficient database performance. Also, not every Client / User would be able to hold meetings at their Location.
Can anyone see an tidier alternative?
Any advice appreciated.
Thanks.
I considered making Location as a field in the Meetings model rather
than a model in its own right - although this could also lead to
redundant data if lots of Meetings are created at the same location,
so this is probably a non-starter.
No, that's a really good thought, because it points you straight at the real problem.
The real problem is that there's a difference between a meeting and the parties that attend a meeting. A meeting has some attributes that have nothing to do with the attendees: it has at the very least a time and a place.
So I think you should change your thinking about the Meeting model.
Instead of users having a M:N relationship with clients through the Meeting model, they should have a M:N relationship through, say, an Attendance model. (A Registration or Reservation or MightAttend model might be more appropriate for you.) And the Meeting model should change to reflect the unique attributes of a real-world meeting: time and place.
I would expect Meetings and Locations to have a many-to-one relationship. Can't a location be used for more than one meeting? (at different times, of course)
It seems to me that a location has attributes that persist beyond its use for a single meeting. Example: seating capacity.
We are working on a mapping application that uses Google Maps API to display points on a map. All points are currently fetched from a MySQL database (holding some 5M + records). Currently all entities are stored in separate tables with attributes representing individual properties.
This presents following problems:
Every time there's a new property we have to make changes in the database, application code and the front-end. This is all fine but some properties have to be added for all entities so that's when it becomes a nightmare to go through 50+ different tables and add new properties.
There's no way to find all entities which share any given property e.g. no way to find all schools/colleges or universities that have a geography dept (without querying schools,uni's and colleges separately).
Removing a property is equally painful.
No standards for defining properties in individual tables. Same property can exist with different name or data type in another table.
No way to link or group points based on their properties (somehow related to point 2).
We are thinking to redesign the whole database but without DBA's help and lack of professional DB design experience we are really struggling.
Another problem we're facing with the new design is that there are lot of shared attributes/properties between entities.
For example:
An entity called "university" has 100+ attributes. Other entities (e.g. hospitals,banks,etc) share quite a few attributes with universities for example atm machines, parking, cafeteria etc etc.
We dont really want to have properties in separate table [and then linking them back to entities w/ foreign keys] as it will require us adding/removing manually. Also generalizing properties will results in groups containing 50+ attributes. Not all records (i.e. entities) require those properties.
So with keeping that in mind here's what we are thinking about the new design:
Have separate tables for each entity containing some basic info e.g. id,name,etc etc.
Have 2 tables attribute type and attribute to store properties information.
Link each entity (or a table if you like) to attribute using a many-to-many relation.
Store addresses in different table called addresses link entities via foreign keys.
We think this will allow us to be more flexible when adding, removing or querying on attributes.
This design, however, will result in increased number of joins when fetching data e.g.to display all "attributes" for a given university we might have a query with 20+ joins to fetch all related attributes in a single row.
We desperately need to know some opinions or possible flaws in this design approach.
Thanks for your time.
In trying to generalize your question without more specific examples, it's hard to truly critique your approach. If you'd like some more in depth analysis, try whipping up an ER diagram.
If your data model is changing so much that you're constantly adding/removing properties and many of these properties overlap, you might be better off using EAV.
Otherwise, if you want to maintain a relational approach but are finding a lot of overlap with properties, you can analyze the entities and look for abstractions that link to them.
Ex) My Db has Puppies, Kittens, and Walruses all with a hasFur and furColor attribute. Remove those attributes from the 3 tables and create a FurryAnimal table that links to each of those 3.
Of course, the simplest answer is to not touch the data model. Instead, create Views on the underlying tables that you can use to address (5), (4) and (2)
1 cannot be an issue. There is one place where your objects are defined. Everything else is generated/derived from that. Just refactor your code until this is the case.
2 is solved by having a metamodel, where you describe which properties are where. This is probably needed for 1 too.
You might want to totally avoid the problem by programming this in Smalltalk with Seaside on a Gemstone object oriented database. Then you can just have objects with collections and don't need so many joins.