So I've done extensive searching on this and I can't seem to find a good solution that actually applies to my situation.
I have a list of projects in a table, then a list of people. I want to assign multiple people to one project. Seems pretty common. Obviously, I can't make multiple columns on my projects table for each person, as the people will change fairly frequently.
I need to display this information very quickly in a continuous list of projects (the ultimate way would be a multiple-select combobox as a listbox is too tall, but they don't exist outside of the dreaded lookup fields)
I can think of two ways:
- Store multiple employee IDs delimited by commas in one field in my projects table (I know this goes against good database design). Would require some code to store and retrieve the data.
- Have a separate table for employees assigned to projects (ID, ProjectID, EmployeeID). One to many relationship between projects table and this new table. One to many relationship between employees table and this new table. If a project has 3 employees assigned, it would store 3 records in this table. It seems a bit odd joining both tables in this way, and would also require code to get it to store and retrieve into a control like the one mentioned above).
Does anyone know if there is a better way (including displaying in an easy control) or how you usually tackle this problem?
The usual way to tackle this problem would be with a Junction Table. This is what you describe where you have a separate table maybe called EmployeeProject which has an EmployeeProjectID(PK), EmployeeID(FK) and ProjectID(FK).
In this way you model a Many-to-Many relationship where each project can have many employees involved and each employee can be involved in many projects. It's not actually all that difficult to do the SQL etc. required to pull the information back together again for display.
I would definitely stay away from storing comma-delimited values as this becomes significantly more complicated when you want to display or manipulate the data.
There's a good guide here: http://en.tekstenuitleg.net/articles/software/create-a-many-to-many-relationship-in-access but if you google "many to many junction table" or similar, there are thousands of pages/articles about implementation.
Related
I am attempting to merge data from various sources into an existing data model. Each source uses different types of IDs (such as GUID, Salesforce IDs, etc.). For example, if I were to merge data from two different sources, the table may look like the following (where the first two SalesPersonIDs are GUID IDs and the second two are Salesforce IDs):
Is this a bad practice? I could also imagine a table where each ID type was its own column and could be left blank if it was not applicable. Something like the following:
I apologize, I am a bit new to this. Thanks in advance for any insight, I greatly appreciate it!
The big roles of an ID column are to act as a key connecting data in different tables, and to help indexing - quickly find rows so your queries run fast.
The second solution wouldn't work well for these purposes, and will lead to big headaches in queries: every time you want to group by the ID, you'll have to combine the info from 2 columns in some way, hopefully getting a correct unique result every time.
On the one hand, all you might ever need from an ID is for it to be unique. The first solution might be fine this respect - but are you sure you'll never, ever get data about one SalesPerson from more than one source?
I'd suggest keeping all the IDs in one column, and adding a column to say what kind of ID this is. At least this way, you won't lose any information and can do other things in the future.
One thing you might consider is making a separate table of SalesPerson with all their possible IDs, and have this keyed to other (Sales?) data by a unique ID used only in your database.
Recently I encountered an application, Where a Master Table is maintained which contain the data of more than 20 categories. For e.g. it has some categories named as Country,State and City.
So my question is, it is better to move out this category as a separate table and fetching out the data through joins or Everything should be inside a single table.
P.S. In future categories count might increase to 50+ or more than it.
P.S. application based on EF6 + Sql Server.
Edited Version
I just want to know that in above scenario what should be the best approach, one should go with single table with proper indexing or go by the DB normalization approach, putting each category into a separate Table and maintaning relationship through fk's.
Normally, categories are put into separate tables. This conforms more closely with normalized database structures and the definition of entities. In particular, it allows for proper foreign key relationships to be defined. That is a big win for data integrity.
Sometimes categories are put into a single table. This can, of course, be confusing; consider, for instance, "Florida, Massachusetts" or "Washington, Iowa" (these are real places).
Putting categories in one table has one major advantage: all the text is in a single location. That can be very handy for internationalization efforts. To be honest, that is the situation where I have seen this used.
Consider we have a database that has a table, which is a record of a sale. You sell both products and services, so you also have a product and service table.
Each sale can either be a product or a service, which leaves the options for designing the database to be something like the following:
Add columns for each type, ie. add Service_id and Product_id to Invoice_Row, both columns of which are nullable. If they're both null, it's an ad-hoc charge not relating to anything, but if one of them is satisfied then it is a row relating to that type.
Add a weird string/id based system, for instance: Type_table, Type_id. This would be a string/varchar and integer respectively, the former would contain for example 'Service', and the latter the id within the Service table. This is obviously loose coupling and horrible, but is a way of solving it so long as you're only accessing the DB from code, as such.
Abstract out the concept of "something that is chargeable" for with new tables, of which Product and Service now are an abstraction of, and on the Invoice_Row table you would link to something like ChargeableEntity_id. However, the ChargeableEntity table here would essentially be redundant as it too would need some way to link to an abstract "backend" table, which brings us all the way back around to the same problem.
Which way would you choose, or what are the other alternatives to solving this problem?
What you are essentially asking is how to achieve polymorphism in a relational database. There are many approaches (as you yourself demonstrate) to this problem. One solution is to use "table per class" inheritance. In this setup, there will be a parent table (akin to your "chargeable item") that contains a unique identifier and the fields that are common to both products and services. There will be two child tables, products and goods: Each will contain the unique identifier for that entity and the fields specific to it.
One benefit to this approach over others is you don't end up with one table with many nullable columns that essentially becomes a dumping ground to describe anything ("schema-less").
One downside is as your inheritance hierarchy grows, the number of joins needed to grab all the data for an entity also grows.
I believe it depends on use case(s).
You could put the common columns in one table and put product and service specific columns in its own tables.Here the deal is that you need to join stuff.
Else if you maintain two separate tables, one for Product and another for Sale. You use application logic to determine which table to insert into. And getting all sales will essentially mean , union of getting all products and getting all sale.
I would go for approach 2 personally to avoid joins and inserting into two tables whenever a sale is made.
We are working on a mapping application that uses Google Maps API to display points on a map. All points are currently fetched from a MySQL database (holding some 5M + records). Currently all entities are stored in separate tables with attributes representing individual properties.
This presents following problems:
Every time there's a new property we have to make changes in the database, application code and the front-end. This is all fine but some properties have to be added for all entities so that's when it becomes a nightmare to go through 50+ different tables and add new properties.
There's no way to find all entities which share any given property e.g. no way to find all schools/colleges or universities that have a geography dept (without querying schools,uni's and colleges separately).
Removing a property is equally painful.
No standards for defining properties in individual tables. Same property can exist with different name or data type in another table.
No way to link or group points based on their properties (somehow related to point 2).
We are thinking to redesign the whole database but without DBA's help and lack of professional DB design experience we are really struggling.
Another problem we're facing with the new design is that there are lot of shared attributes/properties between entities.
For example:
An entity called "university" has 100+ attributes. Other entities (e.g. hospitals,banks,etc) share quite a few attributes with universities for example atm machines, parking, cafeteria etc etc.
We dont really want to have properties in separate table [and then linking them back to entities w/ foreign keys] as it will require us adding/removing manually. Also generalizing properties will results in groups containing 50+ attributes. Not all records (i.e. entities) require those properties.
So with keeping that in mind here's what we are thinking about the new design:
Have separate tables for each entity containing some basic info e.g. id,name,etc etc.
Have 2 tables attribute type and attribute to store properties information.
Link each entity (or a table if you like) to attribute using a many-to-many relation.
Store addresses in different table called addresses link entities via foreign keys.
We think this will allow us to be more flexible when adding, removing or querying on attributes.
This design, however, will result in increased number of joins when fetching data e.g.to display all "attributes" for a given university we might have a query with 20+ joins to fetch all related attributes in a single row.
We desperately need to know some opinions or possible flaws in this design approach.
Thanks for your time.
In trying to generalize your question without more specific examples, it's hard to truly critique your approach. If you'd like some more in depth analysis, try whipping up an ER diagram.
If your data model is changing so much that you're constantly adding/removing properties and many of these properties overlap, you might be better off using EAV.
Otherwise, if you want to maintain a relational approach but are finding a lot of overlap with properties, you can analyze the entities and look for abstractions that link to them.
Ex) My Db has Puppies, Kittens, and Walruses all with a hasFur and furColor attribute. Remove those attributes from the 3 tables and create a FurryAnimal table that links to each of those 3.
Of course, the simplest answer is to not touch the data model. Instead, create Views on the underlying tables that you can use to address (5), (4) and (2)
1 cannot be an issue. There is one place where your objects are defined. Everything else is generated/derived from that. Just refactor your code until this is the case.
2 is solved by having a metamodel, where you describe which properties are where. This is probably needed for 1 too.
You might want to totally avoid the problem by programming this in Smalltalk with Seaside on a Gemstone object oriented database. Then you can just have objects with collections and don't need so many joins.
I have a table that has a bunch of fields. The fields can be broken into logical groups - like a job's project manager info. The groupings themselves aren't really entity candidates as they don't and shouldn't have their own PKs.
For now, to group them, the fields have prefixes (PmFirstName for example) but I'm considering breaking them out into multiple tables with 1:1 relations on the main table.
Is there anything I should watch out for when I do this? Is this just a poor choice?
I can see that maybe my queries will get more complicated with all the extra joins but that can be mitigated with views right? If we're talking about a table with less than 100k records is this going to have a noticeable effect on performance?
Edit: I'll justify the non-entity candidate thoughts a little further. This information is entered by our user base. They don't know/care about each other. So its possible that the same user will submit the same "projectManager name" or whatever which, at this point, wouldn't be violating any constraint. Its for us to determine later on down the pipeline if we wanna correlate entries from separate users. If I were to give these things their own key they would grow at the same rate the main table grows - since they are essentially part of the same entity. At no pt is a user picking from a list of available "project managers".
So, given the above, I don't think they are entities. But maybe not - if you have further thoughts please post.
I don't usually use 1 to 1 relations unless there is a specific performance reason for it. For example storing an infrequently used large text or BLOB type field in a separate table.
I would suspect that there is something else going on here though. In the example you give - PmFirstName - it seems like maybe there should be a single pm_id relating to a "ProjectManagers" or "Employees" table. Are you sure none of those groupings are really entity candidates?
To me, they smell unless for some rows or queries you won't be interested in the extra columns. e.g. if for a large portion of your queries you are not selecting the PmFirstName columns, or if for a large subset of rows those columns are NULL.
I like the smells tag.
I use 1 to 1 relationships for inheritance-like constructs.
For example, all bonds have some basic information like CUSIP, Coupon, DatedDate, and MaturityDate. This all goes in the main table.
Now each type of bond (Treasury, Corporate, Muni, Agency, etc.) also has its own set of columns unique to it.
In the past we would just have one incredibly wide table with all that information. Now we break out the type-specific info into separate tables, which gives us much better performance.
For now, to group them, the fields have prefixes (PmFirstName for example) but I'm considering breaking them out into multiple tables with 1:1 relations on the main table.
Create a person table, every database needs this. Then in your project table have a column called PMKey which points to the person table.
Why do you feel that the group of fields are not an entity candidates? If they are not then why try to identify them with a prefix?
Either drop the prefixes or extract them into their own table.
It is valuable splitting them up into separate tables if they are separate logical entities that could be used elsewhere.
So a "Project Manager" could be 1:1 with all the projects currently, but it makes sense that later you might want to be able to have a Project Manager have more than one project.
So having the extra table is good.
If you have a PrimaryFirstName,PrimaryLastName,PrimaryPhone, SecondaryFirstName,SecondaryLastName,SEcondaryPhone
You could just have a "Person" table with FirstName, LastName, Phone
Then your original Table only needs "PrimaryId" and "SecondaryId" columns to replace the 6 columns you previously had.
Also, using SQL you can split up filegroups and tables across physical locations.
So you could have a POST table, and a COMMENT Table, that have a 1:1 relationship, but the COMMENT table is located on a different filegroup, and on a different physical drive with more memory.
1:1 does not always smell. Unless it has no purpose.