I am trying to figure out the best way to set up my Entity Diagram. I will explain based on the image below.
tblParentCustomer: This table stores information for our Primary Customers, which can either be a Business or Consumer.(They are identified using a lookup table tblCustomerType.)
tblChildCustomer: This table stores customers that are under the Primary Customer. The Primary Business customers can have Authorized Employees and Authorized Reps. The Primary Consumer customers can have Authorized Users. (They are identified using a lookup table tblCustomerType.)
tblChildAccountNumber: This table stores AccountNumbers for tblChildCustomer. These account numbers are mainly for the Child Business Customers. I may be adding Account Numbers for the Child Consumer customers, I am not sure yet, but I believe this design will allow for that if/when necessary.
Going back to tblParentCustomer : If this customer is a Consumer, I will need to add account numbers for them. My question is, do I create a 1 - Many relationship between tblParentCustomer and tblParentAccountNumber? This option would give me 2 different Account Number Tables.
Or would it make sense to create a Junction Account Table that intersects tblParentCustomer and tblChildCustomer?
The first option doesn't really make sense to me because what if there is only 1 Account number for a customer but multiple childCustomers?
Does it make sense to have 2 similar Account Tables that serve a different purpose?
Creating a many-to-many the way you want it to be, you need a link table that will make the whole thing go from 1-* and then *-1
That link table will have two FK, one linking to the parentTable and one linking to the childTable. Combination of those two FK will give you a composite PK (this is important to avoid duplicates). It will allow for any customer to be part of as many accounts as possible (duh.. it'll make the parent/child table a many-to-many relationship).
This approach is extremely common with regards to CRM or any Accounts containing people. Bring it one step further and in that table, you might want to add a "is primary contact" in the AccountMembers table. Drop the childAccountNumber table; you don't need it.
Related
I've run into a bit of a pickle during my development of a web application. I've boiled down the complexity of the application for sake of simplicity in this question.
The purpose of this web application is to sell insurance. Insurance can be purchased through an agent (Agency) or over the phone directly (Customer). Insurance policies can be paid through the agency or the customer can pay for the policy directly. So money is owed (invoiced) and received (payments) from multiple sources (Agencies/Customers).
Billing Options:
Agency (Agency collects from customer outside of app)
Customer
Here's where it gets complicated. Agencies are stored in a separate database table than customers (for obvious reasons). However, both agencies and customers need to be able to make payments and have invoices assigned to them. I'm having difficulty figuring out how to create the proper database schema to allow for both types of database records to be connected to their invoices and payments.
My initial plan was to set up separate relationship (joining) tables that link the agencies and customers to invoices/payments.
However, now that I've been thinking about the problem more, I think it might be beneficial to merge both agencies and customers into a single "Payee" table which would then be associated with payments/invoices. The payee table would only store a primary key. It would not contain actual names or info for the payee - instead I would pull that data via a JOIN with either the agencies or customers tables.
Regardless of whatever solution I choose I am still faced with the problem when creating a new payment record is that I need to scan both the agencies and customers table for possible payees. I'm wondering if there's a proper way to approach this from a database schema standpoint (or from an accounting/e-commerce standpoint).
What is the correct way to handle this type of situation? All ideas and possible solutions are most welcome!
Update 01:
After a few helpful suggestions (see below) I've come up with a possible solution that may solve this issue while keeping the data normalized.
The one thing about this method that rubs me the wrong way is that I will have to make multiple table selects to get a list of all the people who can potentially make payments and/or have invoices assigned to them.
Perhaps this is unavoidable though in this situation since indeed there are different "types" of people that can be associated with payments and invoices. I'm stuck with a situation where I have two different types of records that need to be associated to the same thing. In the above approach I'm using the FKs to link each table (Agencies/Customers) to a Payee record (the table that unifies both Agencies/Customers) and then ultimately links them to Payments and Invoices.
Is this the proper solution? Or is there something I've overlooked?
There are several options:
You might put this like you'd do it with OOP programming and inheritance.
There is one table Person which holds an uniqueID and a type (Agency, Customer, more in Future). Additionally you might add columns with meta-data like who inserted/when/why and columns for status/soft-delete/???
There are two tables Agency and Customer, both holding a PersonID as FK.
Your Payee is the Person
You might use a schema-bound VIEW with a UNION ALL to return both tables of your modell in one result. A unique index on this view should ensure, that you'll have a unique key, at least as combination of the table-source and the ID there.
You might use a middle table with the table-source and the ID there as unique Key and use this two-column-id in you payment process
For sure there are several more...
My best friend was the first option...
My suggestion would be: instead of Payees table - to have two linking tables:
PayeeInvoices {
Id, --PK
PayeeId,
PayeeType,
InvoiceId --FK to Invoices tabse
}
and
PayeePayments {
Id, --PK
PayeeId,
PayeeType,
PaymentId --FK to Payments table.
}.
PayeeType is an option of two: Customer or Agency. When creating a new payment record you can query PayeeInvoices by InvoiceId to get PayeeType and corresponding PayeeId, and then lookup the rest of the data in corresponding tables.
EDIT:
Having second thoughts now. Instead of two extra tables PayeeInvoices and PayeePayments, you can just have PayeeId and PayeeType columns right in Invocies and Payments tables, assuming that Invoice or Payment belongs only to one Payee (Customer or Agency). Both my solutions are not really normalized, though.
We have a situation in a database design in our company. We are trying to figure out the best way to design the database to store transactional data. I need expert’s advice on the best relational design to achieve it. Problem: We have different kind of “Entities” in our system, for example; Customers, Services, Dealers etc. These Entities are doing transfer of funds between each other. We need to store the history of the transfers in database.
Solutions:
One table of transfers and another table to keep “Accounts” information. There are three tables “Customers”, “Services”, “Dealers”. There is another table “Accounts”. An account can be related to any of the “Entities” mentioned above; it means (and that’s the requirement) that logically there should be a one-to-one relationship to/from Entities and Accounts. However, we can only store the Account_ID in the Entities table, but we cannot store the foreign key of Entities in Accounts table. Here the problem happens in terms of database design. Because if there is a customer’s account, it is not restricted by the database design to not be stored in Services table etc. Now we can keep all transfers in one table only since Accounts are unified among all the entities.
Keep the balance information in the table primary Entities table and separate tables for all transfers. Here for all kind of transfers between the entities, we are keeping separate tables. For example, a transfer between a Customer and Service provider will be stored in a table called “Spending”. Another table will have transfer data for transfer between Service and Dealers called “Commission” etc. In this case, we are not storing all the transfers of the funds in a single table, but the foreign keys are properly defined since the tables “Spending” and “Commission” are only between two specific entities.
According to the best practices, which one of the above given solutions is correct, and why?
If you are simply looking for schemas that claim to deal with cases like yours, there is a website with hundreds of published schemas. Some of these pertain to storing transaction data concerning customers and suppliers. You can take one of these and adapt it.
http://www.databaseanswers.org/data_models/
If your question is about how to relate accounts to business contacts, read on.
Customers, Services, and Dealers are all sub classes of some super class that I'll call Contacts. There are two well known design patterns for modeling sub classes in database tables. And there is a technique called Shared primary Key that can be used with one of them to good advantage.
Take a look at the info and the questions grouped under these three tags:
single-table-inheritance class-table-inheritance shared-primary-key
If you use class table inheritance and shared primary key, you will end up with four tables pertaining to contacts: Contacts, Customers, Dealers, and Services. Every entry in Contacts will have a corresponding entry in one of the three subclass tables.
An FK in the accounts table, let's call it Accounts.ContactID will not only reference a row in Contacts, but also a row in whichever of Customers, Dealers, Services pertains to the case at hand.
This may work outwell for you. Alternatively, single table table inheritance works out well in some of the simpler cases. It depends on details about your data and your intended use of it.
You can make table Accounts with three fields with FK to Customers,Dealers and Services and it's will close problem. But also you can make three table for each type of entity with accounting data. You have the deal with multi-system case in system design. Each system solve the task. But for deсision you need make pros and con analyses about algorithm complexity, performance and other system requirements. For example one table will be more simple to code, but three table give more performance of sql database.
Hey I need to redesign the Customer table shown below.
So I want the redesigned ERD to allow a Customer to be either an individual or an organization (so maybe I need a new attribute called OrganizationName?) .
And each individual customer should have their Email recorded, but an organization may leave the Email column blank.
I've been thinking about how I should redesign it for a few hours and still could not find any good approaches.
So does anyone here have any ideas?
Thanks
If you want to keep it really clean your Customer table could contain just two foreign keys, one to a Person table and one to an Organization table. Only one of the foreign keys would be populated and the other null.
Doing it this way means extra tables and relationships but saves you from overloading a single table to handle two different types of entities.
I'm working on some asp.net application, I got stuck in following business.
Suppose we have a person, and he can open both types of accounts and each account has some transaction history. Person table has some primary key say PPK, and customer table has some PK as PIN.
My question is how to solve/present this scenario in database, relation of person table to customer table is 1:2 as no person can have more than two account. and what about that transaction table? that holds all transaction history for some specific account? shall I make two transaction table (which is really a bad idea because as account type exceeds transaction tables exceeds).
Can I build their relation as 1:* (then I may need another table for that. it holds Fk of both table. )
or Can make pin as unique key and always open database for like checking limit of accounts (i.e. two).
I really need some suggestions.
All suggestions are welcome.
Thanks!
P.S: If you dont understand the question please ask me before reporting it away please!
You can either do something like this:
Or something like this:
The first model allows adding more accounts by just changing the CHECK (in case requirements change in the future), while the second would require adding another column in such case.
NOTE: The above assumes both account types are structurally identical, so they "fit" into same table. If that's not the case, you can use inheritance.
Ok you have a person table and an account table with a foreign key relationship between the two which is 1 person to many accounts. Then you have a transaction table that is related to the account id in the account table which is also 1 account to many transacations.
Now to enforce the limit of only two accounts being allowed, for that you want a trigger that checks when a record is being inserted or updated to amek sure the person currently has no more than one other record.
My question relates to the best practices design of tables in a database for a specific scenario.
Say we have a Company that sells office equipment, Say Printers. This company also offers Service Contracts to Customers that have bought 1 or more of its Printers.
Given the above information, we can deduce three tables for our database:
Customer
Printer
ServiceContract
So for a given service contract, we specify which Customer the contract is created for and we assign 1 or more printers that comprise the contract agreement.
With regards to the Printers that are part of the service contract agreement, there are 2 ways we could approach the database design.
The first is to create a ServiceContractID column in the Printers table and create a basic Primary/Foreign key relationship between it and the ServiceContracts table. The only problem I see with with approach is that Printers don't have to be a part of a Service Contract and therefore you could have hundreds or even thousands of Printer records in the database, many of which are not part of a contract, so having this Foreign key column not being used for many of the records.
The second option is to create a link table which would contain 2 foreign keys referencing both The ServiceContracts table (It's primary key) and the Printers table (It's Primary Key). Combining both columns in this new table to make a unique composite primary key.
OK, here's my quandary. I don't see either option as being typically a Really bad idea, but I am stuck on knowing which of these 2 design decisions would be the best practise.
All comments welcome.
I think, without knowing your entire issue, that the second option is preferable. (i.e more properly normalized -in general)
The second option would allow some business rule flexibility which you may not have come up with yet (or your business model may change).
for example: dates may become important. The same ServiceContract may for instance be used even if the business decides on some rule, like all printers are covered for one year after purchase by this customer. where the same agreement just covers many purchases.
so option 2 gives you flexibility for adding other attributes on the relationship...
If I understand your problem domain correctly, the proper way to do this would be option 2. It sounds like a customer can have 0-many service contract, a service contract can have 0-many printers associated with it, and a printer can be associate with 0-1 service contracts (unless contracts expire and renew with a NEW contract, in which case the printer can have many-many.
Customers:
PK
CustomerInfo
Printers:
PK
PrinterInfo
FK on Customer PK
ServiceContracts:
PK
FK on Customer
// This creates a composite PK for the Contract_Printers Table:
Contract_Printers:
FK on Contract PK
FK on Printer PK
Hope that helps. I will be interested in hearing what others think . . .