Change data size of all columns with same column name in sql developer data modeler - oracle-sql-data-modeler

I have a column USER_ID in almost 100 Tables. I have both relational and logical models in Sql developer data modeler(4.2)
I need to change data size from varchar2(5) to varchar2(10)
How can i do this in 1 shot instead of manually changing the size 200 times.

There are several ways. The first method would have been proactive, defining a domain for that. The second way is to create a custom transformation that will go through all the tables in your model, look for any occurrence of a USER_ID column, then adjust its datatype accordingly. Kris Rice's blog was a great source of information when I had to create my own custom scripts:


Advanced user info in database

I'm creating an Account table in my project's database. Each account has A LOT of properties:
Most of them are nullable. My question is, how should I design this in database?
Should it be one table with all those properties? Or maybe should I create two tables, like AccountSet, and AccountInfoSet, where I would store all those 'advanced' user's settings? And last, but not least: if this should be two tables, what kind of relation should be between those tables?
If this is a relational database, then I definitely would not store those properties as fields in the Account table. Some reasons why:
Once your application goes to production (or maybe it's already there), the schema maintenance will become a nightmare. You will absolutely add more properties and having to constantly touch that table in production will be painful.
You will most likely end up with orphaned fields. I've seen this many times where you'll introduce a property and then stop using it, but it's baked into your schema and you might be too scared to remove it.
Ideally you want to avoid having such sparse data in a table (lots of fields with lots of nulls).
My suggestion would be to do what you're already thinking about and that's to introduce a property table for Accounts. You called it AccountInfoSet.
The table should look like this:
AccountId int,
Property nvarchar(50),
Value nvarchar(50)
(Of course you'll set the data types and sizes as you see fit.)
Then you'll join to the AccountInfoSet table and maybe pivot on the "advanced" properties - turn the rows into columns with a query.
In .NET you can also write a stored procedure that returns two queries with one call and look at the tables in the DataSet object.
Or you could just make two separate calls. One for Account and one for the properties.
Lots of ways to get the information out, but make sure you don't just add fields to Account if you're using a relational database.

Table design with joining tables or separate ID in main table

I'm designing a database that has a couple of tables; FAQ's, Bulletins, and Attachments. Bulletins and FAQ's could have an attachment associated with them, so my initial thought was to create a joining table with the two primary keys as a composite key:
Joining table:
As I design this, I also thought, what if other entities are introduced later (say Newsletter, Email, etc.) that need Attachments as well. I would have to create a joining table for each of these entities. Not awful, but it made me think, what if I got rid of the joining tables and put an AttachmentType in the Attachment table and then assigned the type accordingly:
The data in that table would be:
Then the Attachment table would hold the AttachmentTypeID to identify it:
So my question is, for performance wise (using SQL 2008 R2), is there a better choice between the two? Is there a better way to design this? My concern with using individual joining tables is that we may have more entities come along and to accommodate Attachments, we would have to create a joining table and on our front-end software, we would have to write logic for it whereas the AttachmentTypeID would allow the front-end to insert a new AttachmentType and no db interaction would be needed.
Your second solution doesn't have a way to link the attachment to the item, just what kind of item it is.
Even if it did (ie: an itemID), what you would create would be a violation of 4th Normal form - ie: a multivalued dependency.
Stick with your first plan, but consider whether Bulletins are fundamentally different to Newsletters, Emails, FAQs, etc in your application. If you do need a new table for Newsletters, add a new table for NewsletterAttachments.
Also consider, are you going to share attachments between different items, or types of item?
I am totally agree with podiluska. you need to create separate table for each type of attachment otherwise you cant map itemid with attachment and you will face a problem of joining table for different type of attachment . also if you make separate table for each type of attachment then performance will be faster .

Organizing database tables - large number of properties

I have a database that stores some users in it. Each user has its account settings, privacy settings and lots of other properties to set. The number of those properties started to grow and I could end up with 30 properties or so.
Till now, I used to keep it in "UserInfo" table having User and UserInfo related as One-To-Many (keeping a log of all changes). Putting it in a single "UserInfo" table doesn't sound nice and, at least in the database model, it would look messy. What's the solution?
Separating privacy settings, account settings and other "groups" of settings in separate tables and have 1-1 relations between UserInfo and each group of settings table is one solution, but would that be too slow (or much slower) when retrieving the data? I guess all data would not be presented on a single page at the same moment. So maybe having one-to-many relationships to each table is a solution too (keeping log of each group separately)?
If it's only 30 properties, I'd recommend just creating 30 columns. That's not too much for a modern database to handle.
But I would guess that if you ahve 30 properties today, you will continue to invent new properties as time goes on, and the number of columns will keep growing. Restructuring your table to add columns every day may become time-consuming as you get lots of rows.
For an alternative solution check out this blog for a nifty solution for storing lots of dynamic attributes in a "schemaless" way: How FriendFeed Uses MySQL.
Basically, collect all the properties into some format and store it in a single TEXT column. The format is semi-structured, that is your application can separate the properties if needed but you can also add more at any time, or even have different properties per row. XML or YAML or JSON are example formats, or some object serialization format supported by your application code language.
user_proerties TEXT
This makes it hard to search for a given value in a given property. So in addition to the TEXT column, create an auxiliary table for each property you want to be searchable, with two columns: values of the given property, and a foreign key back to the main table where that particular value is found. Now you have can index the column so lookups are quick.
CREATE TABLE UserBirthdate (
birthdate DATE NOT NULL,
FOREIGN KEY (user_id) REFERENCES Users(user_id),
KEY (birthdate)
SELECT u.* FROM Users AS u INNER JOIN UserBirthdate b USING (user_id)
WHERE b.birthdate = '2001-01-01';
This means as you insert or update a row in Users, you also need to insert or update into each of your auxiliary tables, to keep it in sync with your data. This could grow into a complex chore as you add more auxiliary tables.

SQL Server: One Table with 400 Columns or 40 Tables with 10 Columns?

I am using SQL Server 2005 Express and Visual Studio 2008.
I have a database which has a table with 400 Columns. Things were (just about manageable) until I had to perform bi-directional sync between several databases.
I am wondering what arguments are for and against using 400 column database or 40 table database are?
The table in not normalised and comprises of mainly nvarchar(64) columns and some TEXT columns. (there are no datatypes as it was converted from text files).
There is one other table that links to this table and is a 1-1 relationship (i.e one entry relates to one entry in the 400 column table).
The table is a list files that contained parameters that are "plugged" into a application.
I look forward to your replies.
Thank you
Based on your process description I would start with something like this. The model is simplified, does not capture history, etc -- but, it is a good starting point. Note: parameter = property.
- Setup is a collection of properties. One setup can have many properties, one property belongs to one setup only.
- Machine can have many setups, one setup belongs to one machine only.
- Property is of a specific type (temperature, run time, spindle speed), there can be many properties of a certain type.
- Measurement and trait are types of properties. Measurement is a numeric property, like speed. Trait is a descriptive property, like color or some text.
For having a wide table:
Quick to report on as it's presumably denormalized and so no joins are needed.
Easy to understand for end-consumers as they don't need to hold a data model in their heads.
Against having a wide table:
Probably need to have multiple composite indexes to get good query performance
More difficult to maintain data consistency i.e. need to update multiple rows when data changes if that data is on multiple rows
As you're having to update multiple rows and maintain multiple indexes, concurrent performance for updates may become an issue as locks escalate.
You might end up with records with loads of nulls in columns if the attribute isn't relevant to the entity on that row which can make handling results awkward.
If lazy developers do a SELECT * from the table you end up dragging loads of data across the network, so you generally have to maintain suitable subset views.
So it all really depends on what you're doing. If the main purpose of the table is OLAP reporting and updates are infrequent and affect few rows then perhaps a wide, denormalized table is the right thing to have. In an OLTP environment then it's probably not and you should prefer narrower tables. (I generally design in 3NF and then denormalize for query performance as I go along.)
You could always take the approach of normalizing and providing a wide-view for readers if that's what they want to see.
Without knowing more about the situation it's not really possible to say more about the pros and cons in your particular circumstance.
Given what you've said in your comments, have you considered just having a long & skinny name=value pair table so you'd just have UserId, PropertyName, PropertyValue columns? You might want to add in some other meta-attributes into it too; timestamp, version, or whatever. SQL Server is quite efficient at handling these sorts of tables so don't discount a simple solution like this out-of-hand.

Database design - do I need one of two database fields for this?

I am putting together a schema for a database. The goal of the database is to track applications in our department. I have a repeated problem that I am trying to solve.
For example, I have an "Applications" table. I want to keep track if any application uses a database or a bug tracking system so right now I have fields in the Applications table called
Table: Applications
UsesDatabase (bit)
Database_ID (int)
UsesBugTracking (bit)
BugTracking_ID (int)
Table: Databases:
Table: BugTracking:
Should I consolidate the "uses" column with the respective ID columns so there is only one bug tracking column and only one database column in the applications table?
Any best practice here for database design?
NOTE: I would like to run reports like "Percent of Application that use bug tracking" (although I guess either approach could generate this data.)
You could remove the "uses" fields and make the id columns nullable, and let a null value mean that it doesn't use the feature. This is a common way of representing a missing value.
To answer your note, you can easily get that statistics like this:
count(*) as TotalApplications,
count(Database_ID) as UsesDatabase,
count(BugTracking_ID) as UsesBugTracking
Why not get rid of the two Use fields and simply let a NULL value in the _ID fields indicate that the record does not use that application (bug tracking or database)
Either solution works. However, if you think you may want to occasionally just get a list of applications which do / do not have databases / bugtracking consider that having the flag fields reduces the query by one (or two) joins.
Having the bit fields is slightly denormalized, as you have to keep two fields in sync to keep one piece of data updated, but I tend to prefer them for cases like this for the reason I gave in the prior paragraph.
Another option would be to have the field nullable, and put null in it for those entries which do not have DBs / etc, but then you run into problems with foreign key constraints.
I don't think there is any one supreme right way, just consider the tradeoffs and go with what makes sense for your application.
I would use 3 tables for the objects: Application, Database, and BugTracking. Then I would use 2 join tables to do 1-to-many joins: ApplicationDatabases, and ApplicationBugTracking.
The 2 join tables would have both an application_id and the id of the other table. If an application used a single database, it would have a single ApplicationDatabases record joining them together. Using this setup, an application could have 0 database (no records for this app in the ApplicationDatabases table), or many databases (multiple records for this app in the ApplicationDatabases table).
"Should i consolidate the "uses" column"
If I look at your problem statement, then there either is no "uses" column at all, or there are two. In either case, it is wrong of you to speak of "THE" uses column.
May I politely suggest that you learn to be PRECISE when asking questions ?
Yes using null in the foreign key fields should be fine - it seems superfluous to have the bit fields.
Another way of doing it (though it might be considered evil by database people ^^) is to default them to 0 and add in an ID 0 data row in both bugtrack and database tables with a name of "None"... when you do the reports, you'll have to do some more work unless you present the "None" values as they are as well with a neat percentage...
To answer the edited question-
Yes, the fields should be combined, with NULL meaning that the application doesn't have a database (or bug tracker).