Related
I am building a SQLite database and am not sure how to proceed with this scenario.
I'll use a real-world example to explain what I need:
I have a list products that are sold by many stores in various states. Not every Store sells a particular Product at all, and those that do, may only sell it in one State or another. Most stores sell a product in most states, but not all.
For example, let's say I am trying to buy a vacuum cleaner in Hawaii. Joe's Hardware sells vacuums in 18 states, but not in Hawaii. Walmart sells vacuums in Hawaii, but not microwaves. Burger King does not sell vacuums at all, but will give me a Whopper anywhere in the US.
So if I am in Hawaii and search for a vacuum, I should only get Walmart as a result. While other stores may sell vacuums, and may sell in Hawaii, they don't do both but Walmart does.
How do I efficiently create this type of relationship in a relational database (specifically, I am currently using SQLite, but need to be able to convert to MySQL in the future).
Obviously, I would need tables for Product, Store, and State, but I am at a loss on how to create and query the appropriate join tables...
If I, for example, query a certain Product, how would I determine which Store would sell it in a particular State, keeping in mind that Walmart may not sell vacuums in Hawaii, but they do sell tea there?
I understand the basics of 1:1, 1:n, and M:n relationships in RD, but I am not sure how to handle this complexity where there is a many-to-many-to-many situation.
If you could show some SQL statements (or DDL) that demonstrates this, I would be very grateful. Thank you!
An accepted and common way is the utilisation of a table that has a column for referencing the product and another for the store. There's many names for such a table reference table, associative table mapping table to name some.
You want these to be efficient so therefore try to reference by a number which of course has to uniquely identify what it is referencing. With SQLite by default a table has a special column, normally hidden, that is such a unique number. It's the rowid and is typically the most efficient way of accessing rows as SQLite has been designed this common usage in mind.
SQLite allows you to create a column per table that is an alias of the rowid you simple provide the column followed by INTEGER PRIMARY KEY and typically you'd name the column id.
So utilising these the reference table would have a column for the product's id and another for the store's id catering for every combination of product/store.
As an example three tables are created (stores products and a reference/mapping table) the former being populated using :-
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS _products(id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, productname TEXT, productcost REAL);
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS _stores (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, storename TEXT);
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS _product_store_relationships (storereference INTEGER, productreference INTEGER);
INSERT INTO _products (productname,productcost) VALUES
('thingummy',25.30),
('Sky Hook',56.90),
('Tartan Paint',100.34),
('Spirit Level Bubbles - Large', 10.43),
('Spirit Level bubbles - Small',7.77)
;
INSERT INTO _stores (storename) VALUES
('Acme'),
('Shops-R-Them'),
('Harrods'),
('X-Mart')
;
The resultant tables being :-
_product_store_relationships would be empty
Placing products into stores (for example) could be done using :-
-- Build some relationships/references/mappings
INSERT INTO _product_store_relationships VALUES
(2,2), -- Sky Hooks are in Shops-R-Them
(2,4), -- Sky Hooks in x-Mart
(1,3), -- thingummys in Harrods
(1,1), -- and Acme
(1,2), -- and Shops-R-Them
(4,4), -- Spirit Level Bubbles Large in X-Mart
(5,4), -- Spiirit Level Bubble Small in X-Mart
(3,3) -- Tartn paint in Harrods
;
The _product_store_relationships would then be :-
A query such as the following would list the products in stores sorted by store and then product :-
SELECT storename, productname, productcost FROM _stores
JOIN _product_store_relationships ON _stores.id = storereference
JOIN _products ON _product_store_relationships.productreference = _products.id
ORDER BY storename, productname
;
The resultant output being :-
This query will only list stores that have a product name that contains an s or S (as like is typically case sensitive) the output being sorted according to productcost in ASCending order, then storename, then productname:-
SELECT storename, productname, productcost FROM _stores
JOIN _product_store_relationships ON _stores.id = storereference
JOIN _products ON _product_store_relationships.productreference = _products.id
WHERE productname LIKE '%s%'
ORDER BY productcost,storename, productname
;
Output :-
Expanding the above to consider states.
2 new tables states and store_state_reference
Although no real need for a reference table (a store would only be in one state unless you consider a chain of stores to be a store, in which case this would also cope)
The SQL could be :-
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS _states (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, statename TEXT);
INSERT INTO _states (statename) VALUES
('Texas'),
('Ohio'),
('Alabama'),
('Queensland'),
('New South Wales')
;
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS _store_state_references (storereference, statereference);
INSERT INTO _store_state_references VALUES
(1,1),
(2,5),
(3,1),
(4,3)
;
If the following query were run :-
SELECT storename,productname,productcost,statename
FROM _stores
JOIN _store_state_references ON _stores.id = _store_state_references.storereference
JOIN _states ON _store_state_references.statereference =_states.id
JOIN _product_store_relationships ON _stores.id = _product_store_relationships.storereference
JOIN _products ON _product_store_relationships.productreference = _products.id
WHERE statename = 'Texas' AND productname = 'Sky Hook'
;
The output would be :-
Without the WHERE clause :-
make Stores-R-Them have a presence in all states :-
The following would make Stores-R-Them have a presence in all states :-
INSERT INTO _store_state_references VALUES
(2,1),(2,2),(2,3),(2,4)
;
Now the Sky Hook's in Texas results in :-
Note This just covers the basics of the topic.
You will need to create combine mapping table of product, states and stores as tbl_product_states_stores which will store mapping of products, state and store. The columns will be id, product_id, state_id, stores_id.
Due to non-disclosure at my work, I have created an analogy of the situation. Please try to focus on the problem and not "Why don't you rename this table, m,erge those tables etc". Because the actual problem is much more complex.
Heres the deal,
Lets say I have a "Employee Pay Rise" record that has to be approved.
There is a table with single "Users".
There are tables that group Users together, forexample, "Managers", "Executives", "Payroll", "Finance". These groupings are different types with different properties.
When creating a "PayRise" record, the user who is creating the record also selects both a number of these groups (managers, executives etc) and/or single users who can 'approve' the pay rise.
What is the best way to relate a single "EmployeePayRise" record to 0 or more user records, and 0 or more of each of the groupings.
I would assume that the users are linked to the groups? If so in this case I would just link the employeePayRise record to one user that it applies to and the user that can approve. So basically you'd have two columns representing this. The EmployeePayRise.employeeId and EmployeePayRise.approvalById columns. If you need to get to groups, you'd join the EmployeePayRise.employeeId = Employee.id records. Keep it simple without over-complicating your design.
My first thought was to create a table that relates individual approvers to pay rise rows.
create table pay_rise_approvers (
pay_rise_id integer not null references some_other_pay_rise_table (pay_rise_id),
pay_rise_approver_id integer not null references users (user_id),
primary key (pay_rise_id, pay_rise_approver_id)
);
You can't have good foreign keys that reference managers sometimes, and reference payroll some other times. Users seems the logical target for the foreign key.
If the person creating the pay rise rows (not shown) chooses managers, then the user interface is responsible for inserting one row per manager into this table. That part's easy.
A person that appears in more than one group might be a problem. I can imagine a vice-president appearing in both "Executive" and "Finance" groups. I don't think that's particularly hard to handle, but it does require some forethought. Suppose the person who entered the data changed her mind, and decided to remove all the executives from the table. Should an executive who's also in finance be removed?
Another problem is that there's a pretty good chance that not every user should be allowed to approve a pay rise. I'd give some thought to that before implementing any solution.
I know it looks ugly but I think somethimes the solution can be to have the table_name in the table and a union query
create table approve_pay_rise (
rise_proposal varchar2(10) -- foreign key to payrise table
, approver varchar2(10) -- key of record in table named in other_table
, other_table varchar2(15) );
insert into approve_pay_rise values ('prop000001', 'e0009999', 'USERS');
insert into approve_pay_rise values ('prop000001', 'm0002200', 'MANAGERS');
Then either in code a case statement, repeated statements for each other_table value (select ... where other_table = '' .. select ... where other_table = '') or a union select.
I have to admit I shudder when I encounter it and I'll now go wash my hands after typing a recomendation to do it, but it works.
Sounds like you'd might need two tables ("ApprovalUsers" and "ApprovalGroups"). The SELECT statement(s) would be a UNION of UserIds from the "ApprovalUsers" and the UserIDs from any other groups of users that are the "ApprovalGroups" related to the PayRiseId.
SELECT UserID
INTO #TempApprovers
FROM ApprovalUsers
WHERE PayRiseId = 12345
IF EXISTS (SELECT GroupName FROM ApprovalGroups WHERE GroupName = "Executives" and PayRiseId = 12345)
BEGIN
SELECT UserID
INTO #TempApprovers
FROM Executives
END
....
EDIT: this would/could duplicate UserIds, so you would probably want to GROUP BY UserID (i.e. SELECT UserID FROM #TempApprovers GROUP BY UserID)
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I have a Competitions results table which holds team member's names and their ranking on one hand.
On the other hand I need to maintain a table of unique competitors names:
CREATE TABLE Competitors (cName nvarchar(64) primary key)
Now I have some 200,000 results in the 1st table and when the competitors table is empty I can perform this:
INSERT INTO Competitors SELECT DISTINCT Name FROM CompResults
And the query only takes some 5 seconds to insert about 11,000 names.
So far this is not a critical application so I can consider truncate the Competitors table once a month, when I receive the new competition results with some 10,000 rows.
But what is the best practice when new results are added, with new AND existing competitors? I don't want to truncate existing competitors table
I need to perform INSERT statement for new competitors only and do nothing if they exists.
Semantically you are asking "insert Competitors where doesn't already exist":
INSERT Competitors (cName)
SELECT DISTINCT Name
FROM CompResults cr
WHERE
NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM Competitors c
WHERE cr.Name = c.cName)
Another option is to left join your Results table with your existing competitors Table and find the new competitors by filtering the distinct records that don´t match int the join:
INSERT Competitors (cName)
SELECT DISTINCT cr.Name
FROM CompResults cr left join
Competitors c on cr.Name = c.cName
where c.cName is null
New syntax MERGE also offer a compact, elegant and efficient way to do that:
MERGE INTO Competitors AS Target
USING (SELECT DISTINCT Name FROM CompResults) AS Source ON Target.Name = Source.Name
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT (Name) VALUES (Source.Name);
Don't know why anyone else hasn't said this yet;
NORMALISE.
You've got a table that models competitions? Competitions are made up of Competitors? You need a distinct list of Competitors in one or more Competitions......
You should have the following tables.....
CREATE TABLE Competitor (
[CompetitorID] INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY
, [CompetitorName] NVARCHAR(255)
)
CREATE TABLE Competition (
[CompetitionID] INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY
, [CompetitionName] NVARCHAR(255)
)
CREATE TABLE CompetitionCompetitors (
[CompetitionID] INT
, [CompetitorID] INT
, [Score] INT
, PRIMARY KEY (
[CompetitionID]
, [CompetitorID]
)
)
With Constraints on CompetitionCompetitors.CompetitionID and CompetitorID pointing at the other tables.
With this kind of table structure -- your keys are all simple INTS -- there doesn't seem to be a good NATURAL KEY that would fit the model so I think a SURROGATE KEY is a good fit here.
So if you had this then to get the the distinct list of competitors in a particular competition you can issue a query like this:
DECLARE #CompetitionName VARCHAR(50) SET #CompetitionName = 'London Marathon'
SELECT
p.[CompetitorName] AS [CompetitorName]
FROM
Competitor AS p
WHERE
EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM
CompetitionCompetitor AS cc
JOIN Competition AS c ON c.[ID] = cc.[CompetitionID]
WHERE
cc.[CompetitorID] = p.[CompetitorID]
AND cc.[CompetitionName] = #CompetitionNAme
)
And if you wanted the score for each competition a competitor is in:
SELECT
p.[CompetitorName]
, c.[CompetitionName]
, cc.[Score]
FROM
Competitor AS p
JOIN CompetitionCompetitor AS cc ON cc.[CompetitorID] = p.[CompetitorID]
JOIN Competition AS c ON c.[ID] = cc.[CompetitionID]
And when you have a new competition with new competitors then you simply check which ones already exist in the Competitors table. If they already exist then you don't insert into Competitor for those Competitors and do insert for the new ones.
Then you insert the new Competition in Competition and finally you just make all the links in CompetitionCompetitors.
You will need to join the tables together and get a list of unique competitors that don't already exist in Competitors.
This will insert unique records.
INSERT Competitors (cName)
SELECT DISTINCT Name
FROM CompResults cr LEFT JOIN Competitors c ON cr.Name = c.cName
WHERE c.Name IS NULL
There may come a time when this insert needs to be done quickly without being able to wait for the selection of unique names. In that case, you could insert the unique names into a temporary table, and then use that temporary table to insert into your real table. This works well because all the processing happens at the time you are inserting into a temporary table, so it doesn't affect your real table. Then when you have all the processing finished, you do a quick insert into the real table. I might even wrap the last part, where you insert into the real table, inside a transaction.
The answers above which talk about normalizing are great! But what if you find yourself in a position like me where you're not allowed to touch the database schema or structure as it stands? Eg, the DBA's are 'gods' and all suggested revisions go to /dev/null?
In that respect, I feel like this has been answered with this Stack Overflow posting too in regards to all the users above giving code samples.
I'm reposting the code from INSERT VALUES WHERE NOT EXISTS which helped me the most since I can't alter any underlying database tables:
INSERT INTO #table1 (Id, guidd, TimeAdded, ExtraData)
SELECT Id, guidd, TimeAdded, ExtraData
FROM #table2
WHERE NOT EXISTS (Select Id, guidd From #table1 WHERE #table1.id = #table2.id)
-----------------------------------
MERGE #table1 as [Target]
USING (select Id, guidd, TimeAdded, ExtraData from #table2) as [Source]
(id, guidd, TimeAdded, ExtraData)
on [Target].id =[Source].id
WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN
INSERT (id, guidd, TimeAdded, ExtraData)
VALUES ([Source].id, [Source].guidd, [Source].TimeAdded, [Source].ExtraData);
------------------------------
INSERT INTO #table1 (id, guidd, TimeAdded, ExtraData)
SELECT id, guidd, TimeAdded, ExtraData from #table2
EXCEPT
SELECT id, guidd, TimeAdded, ExtraData from #table1
------------------------------
INSERT INTO #table1 (id, guidd, TimeAdded, ExtraData)
SELECT #table2.id, #table2.guidd, #table2.TimeAdded, #table2.ExtraData
FROM #table2
LEFT JOIN #table1 on #table1.id = #table2.id
WHERE #table1.id is null
The above code uses different fields than what you have, but you get the general gist with the various techniques.
Note that as per the original answer on Stack Overflow, this code was copied from here.
Anyway my point is "best practice" often comes down to what you can and can't do as well as theory.
If you're able to normalize and generate indexes/keys -- great!
If not and you have the resort to code hacks like me, hopefully the
above helps.
Good luck!
Normalizing your operational tables as suggested by Transact Charlie, is a good idea, and will save many headaches and problems over time - but there are such things as interface tables, which support integration with external systems, and reporting tables, which support things like analytical processing; and those types of tables should not necessarily be normalized - in fact, very often it is much, much more convenient and performant for them to not be.
In this case, I think Transact Charlie's proposal for your operational tables is a good one.
But I would add an index (not necessarily unique) to CompetitorName in the Competitors table to support efficient joins on CompetitorName for the purposes of integration (loading of data from external sources), and I would put an interface table into the mix: CompetitionResults.
CompetitionResults should contain whatever data your competition results have in it. The point of an interface table like this one is to make it as quick and easy as possible to truncate and reload it from an Excel sheet or a CSV file, or whatever form you have that data in.
That interface table should not be considered part of the normalized set of operational tables. Then you can join with CompetitionResults as suggested by Richard, to insert records into Competitors that don't already exist, and update the ones that do (for example if you actually have more information about competitors, like their phone number or email address).
One thing I would note - in reality, Competitor Name, it seems to me, is very unlikely to be unique in your data. In 200,000 competitors, you may very well have 2 or more David Smiths, for example. So I would recommend that you collect more information from competitors, such as their phone number or an email address, or something which is more likely to be unique.
Your operational table, Competitors, should just have one column for each data item that contributes to a composite natural key; for example it should have one column for a primary email address. But the interface table should have a slot for old and new values for a primary email address, so that the old value can be use to look up the record in Competitors and update that part of it to the new value.
So CompetitionResults should have some "old" and "new" fields - oldEmail, newEmail, oldPhone, newPhone, etc. That way you can form a composite key, in Competitors, from CompetitorName, Email, and Phone.
Then when you have some competition results, you can truncate and reload your CompetitionResults table from your excel sheet or whatever you have, and run a single, efficient insert to insert all the new competitors into the Competitors table, and single, efficient update to update all the information about the existing competitors from the CompetitionResults. And you can do a single insert to insert new rows into the CompetitionCompetitors table. These things can be done in a ProcessCompetitionResults stored procedure, which could be executed after loading the CompetitionResults table.
That's a sort of rudimentary description of what I've seen done over and over in the real world with Oracle Applications, SAP, PeopleSoft, and a laundry list of other enterprise software suites.
One last comment I'd make is one I've made before on SO: If you create a foreign key that insures that a Competitor exists in the Competitors table before you can add a row with that Competitor in it to CompetitionCompetitors, make sure that foreign key is set to cascade updates and deletes. That way if you need to delete a competitor, you can do it and all the rows associated with that competitor will get automatically deleted. Otherwise, by default, the foreign key will require you to delete all the related rows out of CompetitionCompetitors before it will let you delete a Competitor.
(Some people think non-cascading foreign keys are a good safety precaution, but my experience is that they're just a freaking pain in the butt that are more often than not simply a result of an oversight and they create a bunch of make work for DBA's. Dealing with people accidentally deleting stuff is why you have things like "are you sure" dialogs and various types of regular backups and redundant data sources. It's far, far more common to actually want to delete a competitor, whose data is all messed up for example, than it is to accidentally delete one and then go "Oh no! I didn't mean to do that! And now I don't have their competition results! Aaaahh!" The latter is certainly common enough, so, you do need to be prepared for it, but the former is far more common, so the easiest and best way to prepare for the former, imo, is to just make foreign keys cascade updates and deletes.)
Ok, this was asked 7 years ago, but I think the best solution here is to forego the new table entirely and just do this as a custom view. That way you're not duplicating data, there's no worry about unique data, and it doesn't touch the actual database structure. Something like this:
CREATE VIEW vw_competitions
AS
SELECT
Id int
CompetitionName nvarchar(75)
CompetitionType nvarchar(50)
OtherField1 int
OtherField2 nvarchar(64) --add the fields you want viewed from the Competition table
FROM Competitions
GO
Other items can be added here like joins on other tables, WHERE clauses, etc. This is most likely the most elegant solution to this problem, as you now can just query the view:
SELECT *
FROM vw_competitions
...and add any WHERE, IN, or EXISTS clauses to the view query.
Additionally, if you have multiple columns to insert and want to check if they exists or not use the following code
Insert Into [Competitors] (cName, cCity, cState)
Select cName, cCity, cState from
(
select new.* from
(
select distinct cName, cCity, cState
from [Competitors] s, [City] c, [State] s
) new
left join
(
select distinct cName, cCity, cState
from [Competitors] s
) existing
on new.cName = existing.cName and new.City = existing.City and new.State = existing.State
where existing.Name is null or existing.City is null or existing.State is null
)
I have a postgres database with a user table (userid, firstname, lastname) and a usermetadata table (userid, code, content, created datetime). I store various information about each user in the usermetadata table by code and keep a full history. so for example, a user (userid 15) has the following metadata:
15, 'QHS', '20', '2008-08-24 13:36:33.465567-04'
15, 'QHE', '8', '2008-08-24 12:07:08.660519-04'
15, 'QHS', '21', '2008-08-24 09:44:44.39354-04'
15, 'QHE', '10', '2008-08-24 08:47:57.672058-04'
I need to fetch a list of all my users and the most recent value of each of various usermetadata codes. I did this programmatically and it was, of course godawful slow. The best I could figure out to do it in SQL was to join sub-selects, which were also slow and I had to do one for each code.
This is actually not that hard to do in PostgreSQL because it has the "DISTINCT ON" clause in its SELECT syntax (DISTINCT ON isn't standard SQL).
SELECT DISTINCT ON (code) code, content, createtime
FROM metatable
WHERE userid = 15
ORDER BY code, createtime DESC;
That will limit the returned results to the first result per unique code, and if you sort the results by the create time descending, you'll get the newest of each.
I suppose you're not willing to modify your schema, so I'm afraid my answe might not be of much help, but here goes...
One possible solution would be to have the time field empty until it was replaced by a newer value, when you insert the 'deprecation date' instead. Another way is to expand the table with an 'active' column, but that would introduce some redundancy.
The classic solution would be to have both 'Valid-From' and 'Valid-To' fields where the 'Valid-To' fields are blank until some other entry becomes valid. This can be handled easily by using triggers or similar. Using constraints to make sure there is only one item of each type that is valid will ensure data integrity.
Common to these is that there is a single way of determining the set of current fields. You'd simply select all entries with the active user and a NULL 'Valid-To' or 'deprecation date' or a true 'active'.
You might be interested in taking a look at the Wikipedia entry on temporal databases and the article A consensus glossary of temporal database concepts.
A subselect is the standard way of doing this sort of thing. You just need a Unique Constraint on UserId, Code, and Date - and then you can run the following:
SELECT *
FROM Table
JOIN (
SELECT UserId, Code, MAX(Date) as LastDate
FROM Table
GROUP BY UserId, Code
) as Latest ON
Table.UserId = Latest.UserId
AND Table.Code = Latest.Code
AND Table.Date = Latest.Date
WHERE
UserId = #userId
Here is a simplification of my database:
Table: Property
Fields: ID, Address
Table: Quote
Fields: ID, PropertyID, BespokeQuoteFields...
Table: Job
Fields: ID, PropertyID, BespokeJobFields...
Then we have other tables that relate to the Quote and Job tables individually.
I now need to add a Message table where users can record telephone messages left by customers regarding Jobs and Quotes.
I could create two identical tables (QuoteMessage and JobMessage), but this violates the DRY principal and seems messy.
I could create one Message table:
Table: Message
Fields: ID, RelationID, RelationType, OtherFields...
But this stops me from using constraints to enforce my referential integrity. I can also forsee it creating problems with the devlopment side using Linq to SQL later on.
Is there an elegant solution to this problem, or am I ultimately going to have to hack something together?
Burns
Create one Message table, containing a unique MessageId and the various properties you need to store for a message.
Table: Message
Fields: Id, TimeReceived, MessageDetails, WhateverElse...
Create two link tables - QuoteMessage and JobMessage. These will just contain two fields each, foreign keys to the Quote/Job and the Message.
Table: QuoteMessage
Fields: QuoteId, MessageId
Table: JobMessage
Fields: JobId, MessageId
In this way you have defined the data properties of a Message in one place only (making it easy to extend, and to query across all messages), but you also have the referential integrity linking Quotes and Jobs to any number of messages. Indeed, both a Quote and Job could be linked to the same message (I'm not sure if that is appropriate to your business model, but at least the data model gives you the option).
About the only other way I can think of is to have a base Message table, with both an Id and a TypeId. Your subtables (QuoteMessage and JobMessage) then reference the base table on both MessageId and TypeId - but also have CHECK CONSTRAINTS on them to enforce only the appropiate MessageTypeId.
Table: Message
Fields: Id, MessageTypeId, Text, ...
Primary Key: Id, MessageTypeId
Unique: Id
Table: MessageType
Fields: Id, Name
Values: 1, "Quote" : 2, "Job"
Table: QuoteMessage
Fields: Id, MessageId, MessageTypeId, QuoteId
Constraints: MessageTypeId = 1
References: (MessageId, MessageTypeId) = (Message.Id, Message.MessageTypeId)
QuoteId = Quote.QuoteId
Table: JobMessage
Fields: Id, MessageId, MessageTypeId, JobId
Constraints: MessageTypeId = 2
References: (MessageId, MessageTypeId) = (Message.Id, Message.MessageTypeId)
JobId = Job.QuoteId
What does this buy you, as compared to just a JobMesssage and QuoteMessage table? It elevates a Message to a first class citizen, so that you can read all Messages from a single table. In exchange, your query path from a Message to it's relevant Quote or Job is 1 more join away. It kind of depends on your app flow whether that's a good tradeoff or not.
As for 2 identical tables violating DRY - I wouldn't get hung up on that. In DB design, it's less about DRY, and more about normalization. If the 2 things you're modeling have the same attributes (columns), but are actually different things (tables) - then it's reasonable to have multiple tables with similar schemas. Much better than the reverse of munging different things together.
#burns
Ian's answer (+1) is correct [see note]. Using a many to many table QUOTEMESSAGE to join QUOTE to MESSAGE is the most correct model, but will leave orphaned MESSAGE records.
This is one of those rare cases where a trigger can be used. However, caution needs to be applied to ensure that the a single MESSAGE record cannot be associated with both a QUOTE and a JOB.
create trigger quotemessage_trg
on quotemessage
for delete
as
begin
delete
from [message]
where [message].[msg_id] in
(select [msg_id] from Deleted);
end
Note to Ian, I think there is a typo in the table definition for JobMessage, where the columns should be JobId, MessageId (?). I would edit your quote but it might take me a few years to gain that level of reputation!
Why not just have both QuoteId and JobId fields in the message table? Or does a message have to be regarding either a quote or a job and not both?