My question has probably been asked many times, but I can't quite find it (nor has googling been very good).
I'm trying to normalize our DB. Here is the example:
Say we currently have a single table:
Property
---------
id
name
type
types can either be:
multi-family
single-family
healthcare
commercial
I could break this into a separate table so that we have:
Property Prop_Type
-------- ----------
id prop_id
name type
type_id
According to 2-n, I should break this up. But what am I actually saving in performance? I agree that breaking up tables like this makes it easier for us to insert new types of real estate, or modify current ones. But assuming that this isn't very necessary, would this result in a performance increase? The field Property.type is holding up to a 32 byte string versus a Property.type_id which is similar (no?). Plus there is an additional table required in the second option, and a join every time we want to access that data. Finally, our DB is not that large (maybe tens of thousands of records), so space saving is not a priority.
Should I continue to normalize or should I hold off on these small individual breaks?
Thank you!
Should I continue to normalize or should I hold off on these small individual breaks?
Normalization to higher normal forms replaces a table by others using the same columns that join back to the original based on functional dependencies and join dependencies.
According to 2-n, I should break this up
Presumably you mean 2NF. You have not given any information to justify that. And what you discuss doing has nothing to do with normalization.
Looks like you undertand litte about normalization. Get a reference presenting and explaining its issues, definitions and procedures. Use them. Quote them.
But what am I actually saving in performance?
Normalization should be done regardless of performance. You change when justified by the demonstrated present value of changing to another particular design based on the ideal/original.
It's not meaningful to talk about a design's performance without having been given details for a particular DBMS implementation plus expected use. But roughly speaking introducing ids uses less space but causes more joins.
DBMSes exist to have information stored in tables queried by algebra and/or conditions as implemented by the DBMS. Just make the most straightforard design. You need to understand way more about schemas and querying before you will know enough to modify a design for performance.
I agree that breaking up tables like this makes it easier for us to insert new types of real estate,
No, it makes it harder. All you used to have to do is enter the type value you wanted in a Property row. With ids you have to add a Prop_Type row and use that type_id in a Property row.
If possible values for Property type are fixed then add a CHECK constraint on Property type:
CHECK(type IN ('multi-family','single-family','healthcare','commercial'))
(Otherwise, don't.)
If you want possible values for properties to be updated and queried without a schema change and there does not have to be a property for every type then that is something that your original design cannot express. But you still don't need to introduce ids; you can have a Prop_Type table with just a type column and a foreign key from Property type to Prop_Type type.
I think that this is not a normalization problem.
The type column is essentially a discrete type, i.e. has a finite set of values - currently multi-family, single-family, healthcare, commercial.
What you want is to control that no invalid value is inserted into the column. Your prop_type table and a foreign key constraint is one solution.
A more suitable solution is to use a CHECK CONSTRAINT on the column:
CREATE TABLE Property
(
id int PRIMARY KEY,
name ...,
type varchar(20) CONSTRAINT typeValues CHECK (type IN ('multi-family', 'single-family', 'healthcare', 'commercial'))
)
Going further there is no need to store the complete type string in every record. You could simply use a single character to encode the type:
CREATE TABLE Property
(
...
type char(1) CONSTRAINT typeValues CHECK (type IN ('M', 'S', 'H', 'C'))
)
When you present the type, e.g. in a GUI, you would need to translate them into user readable text. To enter a value you would use a dropdown in the GUI.
Related
In our database design we have a couple of tables that describe different objects but which are of the same basic type. As describing the actual tables and what each column is doing would take a long time I'm going to try to simplify it by using a similar structured example based on a job database.
So say we have following tables:
These tables have no connections between each other but share identical columns. So the first step was to unify the identical columns and introduce a unique personId:
Now we have the "header" columns in person that are then linked to the more specific job tables using a 1 to 1 relation using the personId PK as the FK. In our use case a person can only ever have one job so the personId is also unique across the Taxi driver, Programmer and Construction worker tables.
While this structure works we now have the use case where in our application we get the personId and want to get the data of the respective job table. This gets us to the problem that we can't immediately know what kind of job the person with this personId is doing.
A few options we came up with to solve this issue:
Deal with it in the backend
This means just leaving the architecture as it is and look for the right table in the backend code. This could mean looking through every table present and/or construct a semi-complicated join select in which we have to sift through all columns to find the ones which are filled.
All in all: Possible but means a lot of unecessary selects. We also would like to keep such database oriented logic in the actual database.
Using a Type Field
This means adding a field column in the Person table filled for example with numbers to determine the correct child table like:
So you could add a 0 in Type if it's a taxi driver, a 1 if it's a programmer and so on...
While this greatly reduced the amount of backend logic we then have to make sure that the numbers we use in the Type field are known in the backend and don't ever change.
Use separate IDs for each table
That means every job gets its own ID (has to be nullable) in Person like:
Now it's easy to find out which job each person has due to the others having an empty ID.
So my question is: Which one of these designs is the best practice? Am i missing an obvious solution here?
Bill Karwin made a good explanation on a problem similar to this one. https://stackoverflow.com/a/695860/7451039
We've now decided to go with the second option because it seem to come with the least drawbacks as described by the other commenters and posters. As there was no actual answer portraying the second option as a solution i will try to summarize our reasoning:
Against Option 1:
There is no way to distinguish the type from looking at the parent table. As a result the backend would have to include all logic which includes scanning all tables for the that contains the id. While you can compress most of the logic into a single big Join select it would still be a lot more logic as opposed to the other options.
Against Option 3:
As #yuri-g said this one is technically not possible as the separate IDs could not setup as primary keys. They would have to be nullable and as a result can't be indexed, essentially rendering the parent table useless as one of the reasons for it was to have a unique personID across the tables.
Against a single table containing all columns:
For smaller use cases as the one i described in the question this might me viable but we are talking about a bunch of tables with each having roughly 2-6 columns. This would make this option turn into a column-mess really quickly.
Against a flat design with a key-value table:
Our properties have completly different data types, different constraints and foreign key relations. All of this would not be possible/difficult in this design.
Against custom database objects containt the child specific properties:
While this option that #Matthew McPeak suggested might be a viable option for a lot of people our database design never really used objects so introducing them to the mix would likely cause confusion more than it would help us.
In favor of the second option:
This option is easy to use in our table oriented database structure, makes it easy to distinguish the proper child table and does not need a lot of reworking to introduce. Especially since we already have something similar to a Type table that we can easily use for this purpose.
Third option, as you describe it, is impossible: no RDBMS (at least, of I personally know about) would allow you to use NULLs in PK (even composite).
Second is realistic.
And yes, first would take up to N queries to poll relatives in order to determine the actual type (where N is the number of types).
Although you won't escape with one query in second case either: there would always be two of them, because you cant JOIN unless you know what exactly you should be joining.
So basically there are flaws in your design, and you should consider other options there.
Like, denormalization: line non-shared attributes into the parent table anyway, then fields become nulls for non-correpondent types.
Or flexible, flat list of attribute-value pairs related through primary key (yes, schema enforcement is a trade-off).
Or switch to column-oriented DB: that's a case for it.
I have a SQL Server 2008 database with a snowflake-style schema, so lots of different lookup tables, like Language, Countries, States, Status, etc. All these lookup table have almost identical structures: Two columns, Code and Decode. My project manager would like all of these different tables to be one BIG table, so I would need another column, say CodeCategory, and my primary key columns for this big table would be CodeCategory and Code. The problem is that for any of the tables that have the actual code (say Language Code), I cannot establish a foreign key relationship into this big decode table, as the CodeCategory would not be in the fact table, just the code. And codes by themselves will not be unique (they will be within a CodeCategory), so I cannot make an FK from just the fact table code field into the Big lookup table Code field.
So am I missing something, or is this impossible to do and still be able to do FKs in the related tables? I wish I could do this: have a FK where one of the columns I was matching to in the lookup table would match to a string constant. Like this (I know this is impossible but it gives you an idea what I want to do):
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Users] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_User_AppCodes]
FOREIGN KEY('Language', [LanguageCode])
REFERENCES [dbo].[AppCodes] ([AppCodeCategory], [AppCode])
The above does not work, but if it did I would have the FK I need. Where I have the string 'Language', is there any way in T-SQL to substitute the table name from code instead?
I absolutely need the FKs so, if nothing like this is possible, then I will have to stick with my may little lookup tables. any assistance would be appreciated.
Brian
It is not impossible to accomplish this, but it is impossible to accomplish this and not hurt the system on several levels.
While a single lookup table (as has been pointed out already) is a truly horrible idea, I will say that this pattern does not require a single field PK or that it be auto-generated. It requires a composite PK comprised of ([AppCodeCategory], [AppCode]) and then BOTH fields need to be present in the fact table that would have a composite FK of both fields back to the PK. Again, this is not an endorsement of this particular end-goal, just a technical note that it is possible to have composite PKs and FKs in other, more appropriate scenarios.
The main problem with this type of approach to constants is that each constant is truly its own thing: Languages, Countries, States, Statii, etc are all completely separate entities. While the structure of them in the database is the same (as of today), the data within that structure does not represent the same things. You would be locked into a model that either disallows from adding additional lookup fields later (such as ISO codes for Language and Country but not the others, or something related to States that is not applicable to the others), or would require adding NULLable fields with no way to know which Category/ies they applied to (have fun debugging issues related to that and/or explaining to the new person -- who has been there for 2 days and is tasked with writing a new report -- that the 3 digit ISO Country Code does not apply to the "Deleted" status).
This approach also requires that you maintain an arbitrary "Category" field in all related tables. And that is per lookup. So if you have CountryCode, LanguageCode, and StateCode in the fact table, each of those FKs gets a matching CategoryID field, so now that is 6 fields instead of 3. Even if you were able to use TINYINT for CategoryID, if your fact table has even 200 million rows, then those three extra 1 byte fields now take up 600 MB, which adversely affects performance. And let's not forget that backups will take longer and take up more space, but disk is cheap, right? Oh, and if backups take longer, then restores also take longer, right? Oh, but the table has closer to 1 billion rows? Even better ;-).
While this approach looks maybe "cleaner" or "easier" now, it is actually more costly in the long run, especially in terms of wasted developer time, as you (and/or others) in the future try to work around issues related to this poor design choice.
Has anyone even asked your project manager what the intended benefit of this is? It is a reasonable question if you are going to spend some amount of hours making changes to the system that there be a stated benefit for that time spent. It certainly does not make interacting with the data any easier, and in fact will make it harder, especially if you choose a string for the "Category" instead of a TINYINT or maybe SMALLINT.
If your PM still presses for this change, then it should be required, as part of that project, to also change any enums in the app code accordingly so that they match what is in the database. Since the database is having its values munged together, you can accomplish that in C# (assuming your app code is in C#, if not then translate to whatever is appropriate) by setting the enum values explicitly with a pattern of the first X digits are the "category" and the remaining Y digits are the "value". For example:
Assume the "Country" category == 1 and the "Language" catagory == 2, you could do:
enum AppCodes
{
// Countries
United States = 1000001,
Canada = 1000002,
Somewhere Else = 1000003,
// Languages
EnglishUS = 2000001,
EnglishUK = 2000002,
French = 2000003
};
Absurd? Completely. But also analogous to the request of merging all lookup tables into a single table. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Is this being suggested so you can minimise the number of admin screens you need for CRUD operations on your standing data? I've been here before and decided it was better/safer/easier to build a generic screen which used metadata to decide what table to extract from/write to. It was a bit more work to build but kept the database schema 'correct'.
All the standing data tables had the same basic structure, they were mainly for dropdown population with occasional additional fields for business rule purposes.
I have this DB model:
(TEXT is actually VARCHAR)
entity_group_type is not modifiable at runtime, but it will be modified in a near future to add more entries, several times, by the development team.
Now I need to retrieve all entries from entity that are of a given entity_group_type. How should the software handle this kind of queries? Should I hardcode entity_group_type _id/name in the software? If so, why do I even need this table then? And what's better, hardcode _id or name?
Or is this the wrong way to structure my data?
Thanks in advance!
Taking your questions one at a time:
How should you refer to the entity group in the software? Hard-code the id, or the name?
Refer to the entity groups in a way that makes your code the most readable. So, perhaps you use the name, or perhaps a constant that looks like the name but whose value is the id. Using a constant can avoid one join when you are looking up entities by group type, but usually this is not much of a concern.
Why do I even need that table in the DB then? Is this the wrong way to structure my data?
This is a perfectly acceptable way to structure your data. The most correct way depends on what you are doing with the data, but for most applications your structure would be correct. However, you certainly don't need that table in the database--you could instead have a "group_type" field on the entity_group table. Here are the pros and cons:
Advantages of the current structure:
Easy to add fields that describe the entity_group_type. For example, you might want to make some group types only viewable by admin users, or disabled, or whatever. If this is a possiblity for the future, it pretty much requires this database structure.
Ability to have your database software enforce referential integrity, meaning the data is kept consistent between the entity_group and entity_group_type tables.
Advantages of adding a group_type field on the entity_group table:
Possibly a simpler representation in your code. For exameple, if you use a MVC architecture, having the extra table might require another model object in your code. That's usually not a problem, and may have advantages, but sometimes simpler is better.
When you are looking up entities by entity group type, your SQL statements will be slightly simpler, since there will be one less table/join involved.
I think in most cases your current structure comes out ahead, although it does depend of how you use the data. Unless you had a good reason to structure the data differently, I would stick with your current structure.
I think you should definitely store entity_group_type in the database, in its own table, as per your design diagram above. Storing that information in the DB makes it possible to query against that information, which adds flexibility to your design.
Once you have this information in the DB, your question seems to be whether it should be broken out into its own table, or just be stored as column in the entity_type table. I think you should break it out into its own table, with a foreign key constraint from entity_type to entity_group_type.
Having entity_group_type in its own table allows for group types to be preserved even if all of the entity groups of that type are removed from the DB.
You can leverage the foreign key to ensure that the entity_group_type name is spelled consistently. Inserted entity_groups must satisfy the foreign key constraint, and so would have to either reference an existing entity_group_type having a properly spelled name, or insert an entity_group_type which will set the proper spelling for that new entity_group_type.
Use a synthetic key for your entity_group_type table, to reduce painful redundancy in the appearance of entity_group_type name appearance. This makes the data model more DRY, and allows updating the entity_group_type's name to be a simple update to one table.
As for storing the entity_group_type in your application logic, I would suggest storing the name, and looking up the id for the entity_group_type when it is needed. I think that would make the application codebase sowewhat more readable, and I think I've made a compelling argument for why I think this relevant information should have a representation in the database.
Given, that you know the name of your entity_group_type at runtime, then the correct way to find all entity_groups with that entity_group_type.name, you would use a join:
SELECT entity_group._id, entity_group.name, entity_group_type.name AS groupTypeName
FROM entity_group
JOIN entity_group_type ON entity_group.id_type = entity_group_type._id
WHERE entity_group_type.name = 'someGroupName';
This would result in all entity_group information for the given entity_group_type name.
And yes, this is a good or at least possible way to store that kind of information. Just imagine that eventually the entity_group_type gets a new attribute, e.g. disabled. Then it is still easily possible to find all entity_groups which are (not) in disabled types.
After-edit: Wow, this question go long. Please forgive =\
I am creating a new table consisting of over 30 columns. These columns are largely populated by selections made from dropdown lists and their options are largely logically related. For example, a dropdown labeled Review Period will have options such as Monthly, Semi-Annually, and Yearly. I came up with a workable method to normalize these options down to numeric identifiers by creating a primitives lookup table that stores values such as Monthly, Semi-Annually, and Yearly. I then store the IDs of these primitives in the table of record and use a view to join that table out to my lookup table. With this view in place, the table of record can contain raw data that only the application understands while allowing external applications and admins to run SQL against the view and return data that is translated into friendly information.
It just got complicated. Now these dropdown lists are going to have non-logically-related items. For example, the Review Period dropdown list now needs to have options of NA and Manual. This blows my entire grouping scheme out of the water.
Similar constructs that have been used in this application have resorted to storing repeated string values across multiple records. This means you could have hundreds of records with the string 'Monthly' stored in the table's ReviewPeriod column. The thought of this happening has made me cringe since I've started working here, but now I am starting to think that non-normalized data may be the best option here.
The only other way I can think of doing this using my initial method while allowing it to be dynamic and support the constant adding of new options to any dropdown list at any time is this: When saving the data to the database, iterate through every single property of my business object (.NET class in this case) and check for any string value that exists in the primitives table. If it doesn't, add it and return the auto-generated unique identifier for storage in the table of record. It seems so complicated, but is this what one is to go through for the sake of normalized data?
Anything is possible. Nobody is going to haul you off to denormalization jail and revoke your DBA card. I would say that you should know the rules and what breaking them means. Once you have those in hand, it's up to your and your best judgement to do what you think is best.
I came up with a workable method to normalize these options down to
numeric identifiers by creating a primitives lookup table that stores
values such as Monthly, Semi-Annually, and Yearly. I then store the
IDs of these primitives in the table of record and use a view to join
that table out to my lookup table.
Replacing text with ID numbers has nothing at all to do with normalization. You're describing a choice of surrogate keys over natural keys. Sometimes surrogate keys are a good choice, and sometimes surrogate keys are a bad choice. (More often a bad choice than you might believe.)
This means you could have hundreds of records with the string
'Monthly' stored in the table's ReviewPeriod column. The thought of
this happening has made me cringe since I've started working here, but
now I am starting to think that non-normalized data may be the best
option here.
Storing the string "Monthly" in multiple rows has nothing to do with normalization. (Or with denormalization.) This seems to be related to the notion that normalization means "replace all text with id numbers". Storing text in your database shouldn't make you cringe. VARCHAR(n) is there for a reason.
The only other way I can think of doing this using my initial method
while allowing it to be dynamic and support the constant adding of new
options to any dropdown list at any time is this: When saving the data
to the database, iterate through every single property of my business
object (.NET class in this case) and check for any string value that
exists in the primitives table. If it doesn't, add it and return the
auto-generated unique identifier for storage in the table of record.
Let's think about this informally for a minute.
Foreign keys provide referential integrity. Their purpose is to limit the values allowed in a column. Informally, the referenced table provides a set of valid values. Values that aren't in that table aren't allowed in the referencing column of other tables.
But no matter what the user types in, you're going to add it to that table of valid values.
If you're going to accept everything the user types in the first place, why use a foreign key at all?
The main problem here is that you've been poorly served by the people who taught you (mis-taught you) the relational model. (And, probably, equally poorly by the people who taught you SQL.) I hope you can unlearn those mistaken notions quickly, and soon make real progress.
I have an architectural question concerning custom fields in a view for an object. Let's say you have a User Object with some basic information like firstname, lastname, ... that can be used by all customers.
Now, often we get a question from a customer to add couple of custom fields typical for their domain. Our solution now is an xml data column where key value pairs are stored. This has been ok so far, but now we'll have to find a more architectural solution.
For instance, now, a customer wants a dropdown where it can select the value for its custom field. We could still store the selected value in the xml data column, but where do we store all those dropdown values...
I know that in sharepoint you can also add custom fields like dropdowns and I was wondering how to deal with this best. I want to avoid creating custom tables for customers, or having a table with 90 columns (10 basic and then 10 for each customer), ...
You get the idea, it should be generic and be able to deal with all sorts of problems in the future.
What I was thinking about is a Table UserConfiguration where each record has a Foreign Key to the Customer (Channel in our database), then a column FieldName, a column FieldType and a column Values. The column values should be an xml type column, because for a dropdown, we'll need to add multiple values. Also, each value can have extra data attached to it (not just a name). The other problem then is how to store the selected value. I don't like the idea of having foreign keys to xml in my database (read somewhere that Azure can't handle this all to well). Do you just store the name of the value (what if the value were to disappear out of the xml?)?
Any documentation, links on this kind of problems would also be great. I'm trying to find a design pattern that deals with this kind of problem in the database.
I want to answer your question in two parts:
1) Implementing custom fields in a database server
2) Restricting custom fields to an enumeration of values
Although common solutions to 1) are discussed in the question referenced by #Simon, maybe you are looking for a bit of discussion on what the problem is and why it hasn't been solved for us already.
databases are great for structured, typed data
custom fields are inherently less structured
therefore, custom fields are more difficult to work with in a database
some or many of the advantages of using a database are lost
some queries may be more difficult or impossible
type safety may be lost (in the database)
data integrity may no longer be enforced (by the database)
it's a lot more work for the implementers and maintainers
As discussed in the other question, there's no perfect solution.
But these benefits/features still need to be implemented somewhere, and so often the application becomes responsible for data integrity and type safety.
For situations like these, people have created Object-Relation Mapping tools, although, as Jeff Atwood says, even using an ORM could create more problems than it solved. However, you mentioned that it 'should be generic and be able to deal with all sorts of problems in the future' -- this makes me think an ORM might be your best bet.
So, to sum up my answer, this is a known problem with known solutions, none of which are completely satisfactory (because it's so hard). Pick your poison.
To answer the second part of (what I think is) your question:
As mentioned in the linked question, you could implement Entity-Attribute-Value in your database for custom fields, and then add an extra table to hold the legal values for each entity. Then, the attribute/value of the EAV table is a foreign key into the attribute-value table.
For example,
CREATE TABLE `attribute_value` ( -- enumerations go in this table
`attribute` varchar(30),
`value` varchar(30),
PRIMARY KEY (`attribute`, `value`)
);
CREATE TABLE `eav` ( -- now the values of attributes are restricted
`entityid` int,
`attribute` varchar(30),
`value` varchar(30),
PRIMARY KEY (`entityid`, `attribute`),
FOREIGN KEY (`attribute`, `value`) REFERENCES `attribute_value`(`attribute`, `value`)
);
Of course, this solution isn't perfect or complete -- it's only supposed to illustrate the idea. For instance, it uses varchars, and lacks a type column. Also, who gets to decide what the possible values for each attribute are? Can these be changed at any time by the user?
I'm doing something similar for a customer. I've create a JSON FieldType which holds the entire JSON stream of a complex object and a String containing the FQTN (FullQualifiedTypeName) of my C# model class.
By using custom New-, Edit- and Display-Forms we'd ensured that our custom objects are rendered the correct way for best user experience.
To promote fields from the complex C# model to the SharePoint list, we've build something like Microsoft did in InfoPath. Users are able to select Properties or MetaData from the Complex C# type, which will be automatically promoted to the hosting SharePoint list.
The big advantage of JSON is, that its smaller than XML and easier to work with in the web world. (JavaScript...)
When you let the users create the data models, I would recommend looking at an document database or 'NoSQL' since you want exactly that, to store schemaless data structures.
Also, sharePoint stores metadata the way you mentioned (10 columns for text, 5 for dates etc)
That said, in my current project (locked in SharePoint, so Framework 3.5 + SQL Server and all the constraints that follow) we use a somewhat similar structure as below:
Form
Id
Attribute (or Field)
Name
Type (enum) Text, List, Dates, Formulas etc
Hidden (bool)
Mandatory
DefaultValue
Options (for lists)
Readonly
Mask (for SSN etc)
Length (for text fields)
Order
Metadata
FormId
AttributeId
Text (the value for everything but dates)
Date (the value for dates)
Our formulas employ functions such as Increment: INC([attribute1][attribute2], 6) and this would produce something like 000999 for the 999th instance of the combined values for attribute 1 and attribute 2 for a form, this is stored as:
AttributeIncrementFormula
AtributeId
Counter
Token
Other 'formulas' (aka anything non-trivial) such as barcodes are stored as single metadata values. In the actual implementation, we would have something like this:
var form = formRepository.GetById(1);
form.Metadata["firstname"].Value
Value above is a readonly property that decides whether we should get the value from Text or Date and if some additional transform is required. Note that the database here is merely a storage, we hold all the domain complexity in the application.
We also let our customer decide which attribute is the form title for example, so if firstname is the form title, they'll set an in-memory param that spans the entire application to be something like Params.InMemory.TitleAttributeId = <user-defined-id>.
I hope this gives you some insight on a production impl of a similar scenario.
This is really more of a comment than an answer, but I need more space than SO will allow for comments, so here 'tis:
I think your UserConfiguration table approach is good, and would suggest only abstracting the "type" and "value" pieces of your design a bit more:
Since your application will need to validate user input, each notion of "type" will have an associated piece of evaluation logic. Obviously the more of this you can abstract into data the easier it will be to keep your code small. Enumerated lists are a good start, but if your "validator" logic can be extended to handle pattern matching for text strings and Boolean logical expressions (e.g. to describe/enforce constraints on input values), then you can express pretty much any "type" of input that your application may need to handle in terms of (relatively) simple "atoms" that you can map naturally to DB tables.
When storing a user-specified value, you can either store the "raw" data (e.g. in JSON) and a foreign key to the associated "type", or you can add an lookup/cache system that assigns an integer to each new value that is encountered by the system ("novelty" can be checked by checking a hash of the "raw" data, for example). The latter approach obviously scales better if you're expecting lots of data duplication (which of course you would in the case of a multiple-choice menu).