I have the following situation with three tables, which are inherited from
contactBasics
contactSales (foreign key of contactBasics)
contactSupporters (foreign key of contactBasics)
The general data about a person is stored in contactBasics
Specific data about Sales People are additionally stored in contactSales
Specific data about Supporting People are additionally stored in contactSupporters
Is there a good way to handle e.g. contactBasics and contactSales as one object in code ?
help appreciated.
Endo
Assuming there is very similar data between contactSales and contactSupporters, you could just to have a 'contacts' table and add a contact_type field that clarifies which type of contact it is.
This also allows you to expand should you ever need another contact type.
You can use a short string field and have it be 'sales' or 'supporter', or you can go with an int field and have 1 = sales, 2 = supporter...etc. Which of those is up to your preference and app needs.
You can still keep both models if you want/need. In your associations, you can add conditions to differentiate between the two.
(or here for cake 3)
Related
What is the correct database structure design for user table if I have instructor vs student?
Is it correct to create each one in separate table and the id is the user table
Like this?:
Or creating new flag field (1 or 2) to define the students from the instructors like this?:
I know both will work, but I'm asking to get the most professional answer for this problem.
For me i'm working on Laravel and creating a relations there is very easy.
The first option - separate tables for each subtype of user - is recommended when you have subtype-specific attributes, relationships or constraints; and a known fixed set of subtypes.
The second option - a type indicator column - is recommended when you don't have any subtype-specific attributes, relationships or constraints; and works better for user-managed subtypes.
It doesn't matter whether you have overlapping or disjoint subtypes. Either can be recorded in separate tables; or overlapping subtypes can be indicated via multiple boolean fields and disjoint via a single field.
OK, I don't know whether this question belong to this place, but you will suggest me if I'm wrong.
I have some entities which has almost same attributes, differences is in maybe 2-3 columns.
Because of those different columns, I can't create one table with columns that are union of attributes of every entity, because new entity type will require changing table design adding new columns specific to that entity type.
Instead, currently working design is that every specific entity has own table.
But, if new type of entity come on scene, I must create new table, which is totally bad idea.
How can I create one table which consists shared attributes for each type of entity, and some additional mechanism to evidence entity-unique attributes?
So, idea is to easy add new types of objects, without changing database design, configuring only part that deal with unique columns.
P.S. Maybe I'm not clear, but I will add more description if is it needed.
I had a design like that once. What I did was I created a table that housed all the shared properties. Then, I had separate tables for the distinct values. I used joins to match a specific entity to its shared table row. I had less than 10, so my views that used unions I just updated when I added a new entity. But, if you used a naming convention, you could write stored procs that find the table names dynamically and do the unions and joins on the fly. In my case, I used a base class and specific classes to make a custom data layer.
Another possibility is to have a generic table that's basically name/value pairs and a table the represents your shared properties. By joining the tables together, you could have any number of entity specific properties for your entities. It's not very efficient and the SQL would get weird, but I've seen it done.
One solution is to store the common parts in one table, and the specific parts in tables specific to that entity.
eg: To have a set of people, some of whom are managers...
Person Table
PersonID
PersonName
Manager Table
ManagerID
PersonID
DepartmentManaged
As soon as you go down the path of having one table with variable field meanings - effectively an Entity Attribute Value design - you find yourself in querying hell.
Perhaps not the best or most academic, but what about this kind of "open structure" ?
MainTable: all common fields
SpecialProperties: extra properties, as required
- MainRecordId (P, F->MainTable)
- PropertyName (P)
- PropertyText
- PropertyValue (for numeric values)
From my understanding, cakephp doesn't support database inheritance relationship. However, I want to create a database with different type of Users.
In this case, there are three types of Users: Seller, Customer, and Administrator. Every users should have basic User information such as password, username, etc.
However, each types of users will have its own unique set of datas. For example, seller may have inventory_id while customer may have something like delivery_address, etc.
I have been thinking of creating a workaround to this problem without destroying cakephp convention. I was going to create three additional foreign keys, admin_id, seller_id and customer_id, inside User table, which links to other table. However, knowing that this is an IS-A relationship not HAS-A, I would have to make sure that two of the ids are NULL value. Therefore, this workaround seems ugly to me..
Is there any other simpler, better approach?
For this type of database structure I would probably look at adopting an Entity-Attribute-Value model. This would mean your customer may have a delivery_address and your user may have an inventory_id but as far as your relationship in Cake is concerned your both your user and customer would just have an attribute_id ... you can then create another table that stores what type of attributes are available.
It it's simplest form, your user and customer would be attached to an *attribute_lookup* or *attribute_link* table by a hasMany (probably) relationship. That attribute_lookup/link table would be connected by a belongsTo/hasOne relationship to the actual Attribute Type and Attribute Value models.
Providing that you normalise your tables correctly, you can stick well within Cake relationship conventions.
You can read more about EAV here.
I have been thinking about this problem for some time now, and I have eventually got around to build a solution for it. What I came up with is a new ORM that can be used on top of CakePHP.
It sort of works as CakePHP 3.0 with entities that represent an id/model, but it is much more advanced and supports multi table inheritance and single table inheritance.
Check it out: https://github.com/erobwen/Cream
I've been thinking about creating a database that, instead of having a table per object I want to represent, would have a series of generic tables that would allow me to represent anything I want and even modifying (that's actually my main interest) the data associated with any kind of object I represent.
As an example, let's say I'm creating a web application that would let people make appointments with hairdressers. What I would usually do is having the following tables in my database :
clients
hairdressers: FK: id of the company the hairdresser works for
companies
appointments: FK: id of the client and the hairdresser for that appointment
But what happens if we deal with scientific hairdressers that want to associate more data to an appointment (e.g. quantity of shampoo used, grams of hair cut, number of scissor's strokes,...) ?
I was thinking instead of that, I could use the following tables:
entity: represents anything I want. PK(entity_id)
group: is an entity (when I create a group, I first create an entity which
id is then referred to by the FK of the group). PK(group_id), FK(entity_id)
entity_group: each group can contain multiple entity (thus also other groups): PK(entity_id, group_id).
role: e.g. Administrator, Client, HairDresser, Company. PK(role_id)
entity_role: each entity can have multiple roles: PK(entity_id, role_id)
metadata: contains the name and type of the metadata aswell as the associated role and a flag that describes if its mandatory or not. PK(metadata_id), FK(metadata_type_id, role_id)
metadata_type: contains information about available metadata types. PK(metadata_type_id)
metadata_value: PK(metadata_value_id), FK(metadata_id)
metadata_: different tables for the different types e.g. char, text, integer, double, datetime, date. PK(metadata__id), FK(metadata_value_id) which contain the actual value of a metadata associated with an entity.
entity_metadata: contains data associated with an entity e.g. name of a client, address of a company,... PK(entity_id, metadata_value_id). Using the type of the metadata, its possible to select the actual value of a metadata for this entity in the corresponding table.
This would allow me to have a completely flexible data structure but has a few drawbacks:
Selecting the metadatas associated with an entity returns multiple rows that I have to process in my code to create the representation of the entity in my code.
Selecting metadatas of multiple entities requires to loop over the same process as above.
Selecting metadatas will also require me to do a select for each one of the metadata_* table that I have.
On the other hand, it has some advantages. For example, instead of having a client table with a lot of fields that will almost never be filled, I just use the exact number of rows that I need.
Is this a good idea at all?
I hope that I've expressed clearly what I'm trying to achieve. I guess that I'm not the first one who wonders how to achieve that but I was not able to find the right keywords to find an answer to that question :/
Thanks!
I am currently in the process of looking at a restructure our contact management database and I wanted to hear peoples opinions on solving the problem of a number of contact types having shared attributes.
Basically we have 6 contact types which include Person, Company and Position # Company.
In the current structure all of these have an address however in the address table you must store their type in order to join to the contact.
This consistent requirement to join on contact type gets frustrating after a while.
Today I stumbled across a post discussing "Table Inheritance" (http://www.sqlteam.com/article/implementing-table-inheritance-in-sql-server).
Basically you have a parent table and a number of sub tables (in this case each contact type). From there you enforce integrity so that a sub table must have a master equivalent where it's type is defined.
The way I see it, by this method I would no longer need to store the type in tables like address, as the id is unique across all types.
I just wanted to know if anybody had any feelings on this method, whether it is a good way to go, or perhaps alternatives?
I'm using SQL Server 05 & 08 should that make any difference.
Thanks
Ed
I designed a database just like the link you provided suggests. The case was to store the data for many different technical reports. The number of report types is undefined and will probably grow to about 40 different types.
I created one master report table, that has an autoincrement primary key. That table contains all common information like customer, testsite, equipmentid, date etc.
Then I have one table for each report type that contains the spesific information relating to that report type. That table have the same primary key as the master and references the master as well.
My idea for splitting this into different tables with a 1:1 relation (which normally would be a no-no) was to avoid getting one single table with a huge number of columns, that gets very difficult to maintain as your constantly adding columns.
My design with table inheritance gave me segmented data and expandability without beeing difficult to maintain. The only thing I had to do was to write special a special save method to handle writing to two tables automatically. So far I'm very happy with the design and haven't really found any drawbacks, except for a little more complicated save method.
Google on "gen-spec relational modeling". You'll find a lot of articles discussing exactly this pattern. Some of them focus on table design, while others focus on an object oriented approach.
Table inheritance pops up in a few of them.
I know this won't help much now, but initially it may have been better to have an Entity table rather than 6 different contact types. Then each Entity could have as many addresses as necessary and there would be no need for type in the join.
You'll still have the problem that if you want the sub-type fields and you have only the master contact, you'll have to know what table to go looking at - or else join to all of them. But otherwise this is a workable solution to a common problem.
Another possibility (fairly similar in structure, but different in how you think of it) is to simply put all your contacts into one table. Then for the more specific fields (birthday say for people and department for position#company) create separate tables that are associated with that contact.
Contact Table
--------------
Name
Phone Number
Address Table
-------------
Street / state, etc
ContactId
ContactBirthday Table
--------------
Birthday
ContactId
Departments Table
-----------------
Department
ContactId
It requires a different way of thinking of things though - instead of thinking of people vs. companies, you think of the various functional requirements for the task at hand - if you want to send out birthday cards, get all the contacts that have birthdays associated with them, etc..
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you should rethink your normalization strategy (as you seem to be lucky enough to be able to rethink your schema quite fundamentally). If you typically store an address for each contact, then your contact table should have the address fields in it. Alternatively if the address is stored per company then the address should be stored in the company table and your contacts linked to that company.
If your contacts only have one address, or one (or even 3, just not 'many') instance of the other fields, think about rationalizing them into a single table. In my experience having a few null fields is a far better alternative than needing left joins to data you aren't sure exists.
Fortunately for anyone who vehemently disagrees with me you did ask for opinions! :) IMHO you should only normalize when you really need to. Where you are rethinking schemas, denormalization should be considered at every opportunity.
When you have a 7th type, you'll have to create another table.
I'm going to try this approach. Yes, you have to create new tables when you have a new type, but since this table will probably have different columns, you'll end up doing this anyway if you don't use this scheme.
If the tables that inherit the master don't differentiate much from one another, I'd recommend you try another approach.
May I suggest that we just add a Type table. Ie a person has an address, name etc then the student, teacher as each use case presents its self we have a PersonType table that has an entry from the person table to n types and the subsequent new tables teacher, alien, singer as the system eveolves...