Heres a simple version of the website I'm designing: Users can belong to one or more groups. As many groups as they want. When they log in they are presented with the groups the belong to. Ideally, in my Users table I'd like an array or something that is unbounded to which I can keep on adding the IDs of the groups that user joins.
Additionally, although I realize this isn't necessary, I might want a column in my Group table which has an indefinite amount of user IDs which belong in that group. (side question: would that be more efficient than getting all the users of the group by querying the user table for users belonging to a certain group ID?)
Does my question make sense? Mainly I want to be able to fill a column up with an indefinite list of IDs... The only way I can think of is making it like some super long varchar and having the list JSON encoded in there or something, but ewww
Please and thanks
Oh and its a mysql database (my website is in php), but 2 years of php development I've recently decided php sucks and I hate it and ASP .NET web applications is the only way for me so I guess I'll be implementing this on whatever kind of database I'll need for that.
Your intuition is correct; you don't want to have one column of unbounded length just to hold the user's groups. Instead, create a table such as user_group_membership with the columns:
user_id
group_id
A single user_id could have multiple rows, each with the same user_id but a different group_id. You would represent membership in multiple groups by adding multiple rows to this table.
What you have here is a many-to-many relationship. A "many-to-many" relationship is represented by a third, joining table that contains both primary keys of the related entities. You might also hear this called a bridge table, a junction table, or an associative entity.
You have the following relationships:
A User belongs to many Groups
A Group can have many Users
In database design, this might be represented as follows:
This way, a UserGroup represents any combination of a User and a Group without the problem of having "infinite columns."
If you store an indefinite amount of data in one field, your design does not conform to First Normal Form. FNF is the first step in a design pattern called data normalization. Data normalization is a major aspect of database design. Normalized design is usually good design although there are some situations where a different design pattern might be better adapted.
If your data is not in FNF, you will end up doing sequential scans for some queries where a normalized database would be accessed via a quick lookup. For a table with a billion rows, this could mean delaying an hour rather than a few seconds. FNF guarantees a direct access lookup path for each item of data.
As other responders have indicated, such a design will involve more than one table, to be joined at retrieval time. Joining takes some time, but it's tiny compared to the time wasted in sequential scans, if the data volume is large.
Related
I am creating a mobile game where I am optimistically hoping i'll have millions of players.
I have created a users table that currently has roughly 8 columns (ie. userid, username, password, last_signin, etc)
For every user I'll also need to record the amount of in-game currency they have (ie. gold, silver, gems, etc).
This is a 1:1 relationship (a user will only ever have 1 value defining how much gold they have).
I am no database expert (which is why I am posting here). I worry If I added the gold, silver, gems, etc as new rows in the users table that the users table will be hammered with a crazy amount of queries per second. Everytime someone in the game finds more gold, more silver, logs in, creates an account... the users table will be accessed and/or updated.
Would it be smarter to add the gold, silver, and gems as columns in a new table called "resources" that had the following columns : userid, gold, silver, gems. This new table would have the exact same number of rows as the user table since there is a 1:1 relationship between users and resources. I'm wondering if those queries would be faster since the database data is split up and not all queries would go to the same table.
Clearly to me it seems better to put it all in 1 table since they are 1:1.... but It also seemed like a bad idea to have the majority of the games data in 1 table.
Thanks for any advice you can give!
Ryan
There are plenty of cases where good design calls for two tables in a 1:1 relationship with each other. There is no normalization rule that calls for decomposing tables in this manner. But normalization isn't the only handle on good design.
Access traffic is another handle. Your intuition that access to resources is going to be much more frequent than access to basic user data sounds credible. But you will need to check it out, to make sure that the transactions that access resources don't end up using basic user data anyway. It all boils down to which costs more: a fat user table or more joins.
Other responders have already hinted that there may come a day when the 1:1 relationship becomes a 1:many relationship. I can imagine one. The model of the game player gets expanded where a single user can get involved in multiple distinct instances of the game. In this case, a single user might have the same basic user data in all instances, but different resources in each instance. I have no way of telling if this is ever going to happen in your case. But, if it does, you're going to be better off with a separate resources table.
It really depends on your game design, how big your database is, and how you might expand your database in the future. I would put the resources in a separate table with a foreign key pointing to the user id because:
You can keep the user table slimmer for easier
maintenance/backup.
Simple 1-to-1 JOIN operation between two
tables doesn't take much more resources than having everything in
the same table, as long as you have proper indexing.
By keeping your tables separated, you are practicing separation of concerns;
multiple people can work on different stuff without having to worry
about affecting other tables.
Easier to expand. You may want to add other columns such as birth_date, region, first_name, etc. that
are more relevant to users' personal info to the users table in the
future. It will be confusing if columns of different purposes are
stored together. (In PostgreSQL you can't simply arrange column
order though you can create Views for that.)
This is a 1:1 relationship (a user will only ever have 1 value defining how much gold they have).
... for now ;)
I am no database expert (which is why I am posting here). I worry If I added the gold, silver, gems, etc as new rows in the users table
New columns?
Would it be smarter to add the gold, silver, and gems as columns in a new table called "resources"
Probably, because:
You'll be doing smaller writes when you update the frequently updated part, without rewriting less-modified user data
It makes it easier to audit changes to the user data
I am having a hard time trying to figure out when to use a 1-to-1 relationship in db design or if it is ever necessary.
If you can select only the columns you need in a query is there ever a point to break up a table into 1-to-1 relationships. I guess updating a large table has more impact on performance than a smaller table and I'm sure it depends on how heavily the table is used for certain operations (read/ writes)
So when designing a database schema how do you factor in 1-to-1 relationships? What criteria do you use to determine if you need one, and what are the benefits over not using one?
From the logical standpoint, a 1:1 relationship should always be merged into a single table.
On the other hand, there may be physical considerations for such "vertical partitioning" or "row splitting", especially if you know you'll access some columns more frequently or in different pattern than the others, for example:
You might want to cluster or partition the two "endpoint" tables of a 1:1 relationship differently.
If your DBMS allows it, you might want to put them on different physical disks (e.g. more performance-critical on an SSD and the other on a cheap HDD).
You have measured the effect on caching and you want to make sure the "hot" columns are kept in cache, without "cold" columns "polluting" it.
You need a concurrency behavior (such as locking) that is "narrower" than the whole row. This is highly DBMS-specific.
You need different security on different columns, but your DBMS does not support column-level permissions.
Triggers are typically table-specific. While you can theoretically have just one table and have the trigger ignore the "wrong half" of the row, some databases may impose additional limits on what a trigger can and cannot do. For example, Oracle doesn't let you modify the so called "mutating" table from a row-level trigger - by having separate tables, only one of them may be mutating so you can still modify the other from your trigger (but there are other ways to work-around that).
Databases are very good at manipulating the data, so I wouldn't split the table just for the update performance, unless you have performed the actual benchmarks on representative amounts of data and concluded the performance difference is actually there and significant enough (e.g. to offset the increased need for JOINing).
On the other hand, if you are talking about "1:0 or 1" (and not a true 1:1), this is a different question entirely, deserving a different answer...
See also: When I should use one to one relationship?
Separation of duties and abstraction of database tables.
If I have a user and I design the system for each user to have an address, but then I change the system, all I have to do is add a new record to the Address table instead of adding a brand new table and migrating the data.
EDIT
Currently right now if you wanted to have a person record and each person had exactly one address record, then you could have a 1-to-1 relationship between a Person table and an Address table or you could just have a Person table that also had the columns for the address.
In the future maybe you made the decision to allow a person to have multiple addresses. You would not have to change your database structure in the 1-to-1 relationship scenario, you only have to change how you handle the data coming back to you. However, in the single table structure you would have to create a new table and migrate the address data to the new table in order to create a best practice 1-to-many relationship database structure.
Well, on paper, normalized form looks to be the best. In real world usually it is a trade-off. Most large systems that I know do trade-offs and not trying to be fully normalized.
I'll try to give an example. If you are in a banking application, with 10 millions passbook account, and the usual transactions will be just a query of the latest balance of certain account. You have table A that stores just those information (account number, account balance, and account holder name).
Your account also have another 40 attributes, such as the customer address, tax number, id for mapping to other systems which is in table B.
A and B have one to one mapping.
In order to be able to retrieve the account balance fast, you may want to employ different index strategy (such as hash index) for the small table that has the account balance and account holder name.
The table that contains the other 40 attributes may reside in different table space or storage, employ different type of indexing, for example because you want to sort them by name, account number, branch id, etc. Your system can tolerate slow retrieval of these 40 attributes, while you need fast retrieval of your account balance query by account number.
Having all the 43 attributes in one table seems to be natural, and probably 'naturally slow' and unacceptable for just retrieving single account balance.
It makes sense to use 1-1 relationships to model an entity in the real world. That way, when more entities are added to your "world", they only also have to relate to the data that they pertain to (and no more).
That's the key really, your data (each table) should contain only enough data to describe the real-world thing it represents and no more. There should be no redundant fields as all make sense in terms of that "thing". It means that less data is repeated across the system (with the update issues that would bring!) and that you can retrieve individual data independently (not have to split/ parse strings for example).
To work out how to do this, you should research "Database Normalisation" (or Normalization), "Normal Form" and "first, second and third normal form". This describes how to break down your data. A version with an example is always helpful. Perhaps try this tutorial.
Often people are talking about a 1:0..1 relationship and call it a 1:1. In reality, a typical RDBMS cannot support a literal 1:1 relationship in any case.
As such, I think it's only fair to address sub-classing here, even though it technically necessitates a 1:0..1 relationship, and not the literal concept of a 1:1.
A 1:0..1 is quite useful when you have fields that would be exactly the same among several entities/tables. For example, contact information fields such as address, phone number, email, etc. that might be common for both employees and clients could be broken out into an entity made purely for contact information.
A contact table would hold common information, like address and phone number(s).
So an employee table holds employee specific information such as employee number, hire date and so on. It would also have a foreign key reference to the contact table for the employee's contact info.
A client table would hold client information, such as an email address, their employer name, and perhaps some demographic data such as gender and/or marital status. The client would also have a foreign key reference to the contact table for their contact info.
In doing this, every employee would have a contact, but not every contact would have an employee. The same concept would apply to clients.
Just a few samples from past projects:
a TestRequests table can have only one matching Report. But depending on the nature of the Request, the fields in the Report may be totally different.
in a banking project, an Entities table hold various kind of entities: Funds, RealEstateProperties, Companies. Most of those Entities have similar properties, but Funds require about 120 extra fields, while they represent only 5% of the records.
Why use rowguid and what are the benefits?
Suppose a company has thousands of customers, is it a good approach to divide them on the basis of their gender for the performance and fast query if no then why?
How do large companies like Facebook handle their primary key for their comments, users and for other things for example:
Suppose there are five users with primary key 1,2,3,4,5...
What if user 3 is deleted from there, now it's 1,2,4,5 will be left, which is kind of gap between continuous chain. How do they deal with it?
Don't know - maybe you use a non-auto value so you can keep it constant across other databases (maybe for use with 3rd part integration etc.)
Do not divide on a field such as gender, when you don't know gender (or want a full list) you are going to have to search two tables, also when you want to add other filtering/searching you will have to do over multiple tables again
So what if there is a gap in the ID chain - it does not effect anything. Why would you think it is important?
What is the best way to store settings for certain objects in my database?
Method one: Using a single table
Table: Company {CompanyID, CompanyName, AutoEmail, AutoEmailAddress, AutoPrint, AutoPrintPrinter}
Method two: Using two tables
Table Company {CompanyID, COmpanyName}
Table2 CompanySettings{CompanyID, utoEmail, AutoEmailAddress, AutoPrint, AutoPrintPrinter}
I would take things a step further...
Table 1 - Company
CompanyID (int)
CompanyName (string)
Example
CompanyID 1
CompanyName "Swift Point"
Table 2 - Contact Types
ContactTypeID (int)
ContactType (string)
Example
ContactTypeID 1
ContactType "AutoEmail"
Table 3 Company Contact
CompanyID (int)
ContactTypeID (int)
Addressing (string)
Example
CompanyID 1
ContactTypeID 1
Addressing "name#address.blah"
This solution gives you extensibility as you won't need to add columns to cope with new contact types in the future.
SELECT
[company].CompanyID,
[company].CompanyName,
[contacttype].ContactTypeID,
[contacttype].ContactType,
[companycontact].Addressing
FROM
[company]
INNER JOIN
[companycontact] ON [companycontact].CompanyID = [company].CompanyID
INNER JOIN
[contacttype] ON [contacttype].ContactTypeID = [companycontact].ContactTypeID
This would give you multiple rows for each company. A row for "AutoEmail" a row for "AutoPrint" and maybe in the future a row for "ManualEmail", "AutoFax" or even "AutoTeleport".
Response to HLEM.
Yes, this is indeed the EAV model. It is useful where you want to have an extensible list of attributes with similar data. In this case, varying methods of contact with a string that represents the "address" of the contact.
If you didn't want to use the EAV model, you should next consider relational tables, rather than storing the data in flat tables. This is because this data will almost certainly extend.
Neither EAV model nor the relational model significantly slow queries. Joins are actually very fast, compared with (for example) a sort. Returning a record for a company with all of its associated contact types, or indeed a specific contact type would be very fast. I am working on a financial MS SQL database with millions of rows and similar data models and have no problem returning significant amounts of data in sub-second timings.
In terms of complexity, this isn't the most technical design in terms of database modelling and the concept of joining tables is most definitely below what I would consider to be "intermediate" level database development.
I would consider if you need one or two tables based onthe following criteria:
First are you close the the record storage limit, then two tables definitely.
Second will you usually be querying the information you plan to put inthe second table most of the time you query the first table? Then one table might make more sense. If you usually do not need the extended information, a separate ( and less wide) table should improve performance on the main data queries.
Third, how strong a possibility is it that you will ever need multiple values? If it is one to one nopw, but something like email address or phone number that has a strong possibility of morphing into multiple rows, go ahead and make it a related table. If you know there is no chance or only a small chance, then it is OK to keep it one assuming the table isn't too wide.
EAV tables look like they are nice and will save futue work, but in reality they don't. Genreally if you need to add another type, you need to do future work to adjust quesries etc. Writing a script to add a column takes all of five minutes, the other work will need to be there regarless of the structure. EAV tables are also very hard to query when you don;t know how many records you wil need to pull becasue normally you want them on one line and will get the information by joining to the same table multiple times. This causes performance problmes and locking especially if this table is central to your design. Don't use this method.
It depends if you will ever need more information about a company. If you notice yourself adding fields like companyphonenumber1 companyphonenumber2, etc etc. Then method 2 is better as you would seperate your entities and just reference a company id. If you do not plan to make these changes and you feel that this table will never change then method 1 is fine.
Usually, if you don't have data duplication then a single table is fine.
In your case you don't so the first method is OK.
I use one table if I estimate the data from the "second" table will be used in more than 50% of my queries. Use two tables if I need multiple copies of the data (i.e. multiple phone numbers, email addresses, etc)
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.