I started to learn Atk just a week ago and I decided to reimplement the business intranet which is becoming unmaintainable.
The model abstraction is very cool to use but I wonder how to specify multiple primary keys for my junction tables.
For example, I have sites and I want to assign machines on them for a period.
Junction table
This is very important to me to not touch the database.
I guess you can do that using joins in your Models if you're not allowed to add simple auto_incremented id field in that junction table.
But adding id field will be much more easier for you and also will work better in future.
For example, you can have some issues with deleting record without unique id field. I know (id_machine,id_site) is most likely unique in your case, but it's still hard to work with. One simple id field is easier, faster and better :)
Dark has a good suggestion. You can also create a calculated ID field, I have never tried it myself but do try it
$model->getElement('id')->destroy();
$model->addExpression('id')->set('contact(id_machine,"-",id_site)');
Related
Not a coding question per se. just trying to get some best practices suggestions.
I believe it is best practice to have a key for every data table. I've read recently that a key should NOT be an integer (auto number, etc.) because it makes hacking a slight bit easier.
So, I've started to use Guid for keys.
Now, should I use a human-readable ID as well?
Example, for a table of departments in an organization: Human Resources, Information Technology, etc. should I also include a column for the ID such as HR, IT, etc.
What are your thoughts?
PS. I realize this is a simple example for discussion sake. Thanks
I have to take an online course on DB design once again since I got a really lazy teacher that I thought had taught us everything and I continue to find out he didn't.
I'm designing a small DB in which two particular tables brought up this question.
I have a table called "Athlete" which stores Athlete info and a second table called "EntryInfo" which stores a guy's objectives, if he was a referral by another athlete.
There is no way an athlete could have more than one of this entry infos, so I thought idAthlete would apply to both "Athlete" and "EntryInfo" but I don´t know if this is correct or not. Now I have these questions:
1) In trying to keep "Athlete" table as clean as possible I didn't include this "EntryInfo" in the "Athlete" table from the beginning but it COULD be in the same table. Is this the best way to handle it? Regarding good practices in DB design should they be in 1 or 2 tables?
2) If it´s better to keep it in two separate tables, can I have idAthlete as PK in Athlete table (identity, incremental) and have it also as a PK in Entry Info only as a FK? or would it be a better practice to have a PK identity incremental idEntryInfo on EntryInfo table with a FK idAthlete?
I know this is such a basic question and I know I should take a course on DB design and normalisation (and I will do).
When you have two tables with the same key it's called vertical partitioning and it's a valid design for various reasons.
However I don't see any reasons in your explanation. I only see your statement keep "Athlete" table as clean as possible, which has a pretty general meaning. If you're going to put different groups of fields into different tables you can categorise that any number of ways
If you had a zillion records and you had performance issues it might be worth considering.
It will be simpler for you if you keep it in one table, then you don't have to fiddle about synchronising keys between the tables
I have an ERP application with about 50 small lookup tables containing non-transactional data. Examples are ItemTypes, SalesOrderStatuses etc. There are so many different types and categories and statuses and with every new module new lookup tables are being added. I have a service to provide List objects out of these tables. These tables usually contain only two columns, (Id and Description). They have only a couple of rows, 8 - 10 rows at max.
I am thinking about putting all of them in one table with ID, Description and LookupTypeID. With this one table I will be able to get rid of 50 tables. Is it good idea? Bad Idea? Very bad idea?
Are there any standards/best-practices for managing small lookup tables?
Among some professionals, the single common lookup table is a design error you should avoid. At the very least, it will slow down performance. The reason is that you will have to have a compound primary key for the common table, and lookups via a compound key will take longer than lookups via a simple key.
According to Anith Sen, this is the first of five design errors you should avoid. See this article: Five Simple Design Errors
Merging lookup tables is a bad idea if you care about integrity of your data (and you should!):
It would allow "client" tables to reference the data they were not meant to reference. E.g. the DBMS will not protect you from referencing SalesOrderStatuses where only ItemTypes should be allowed - they are now in the same table and you cannot (easily) separate the corresponding FKs.
It would force all lookup data to share the same columns and types.
Unless you have a performance problems due to excessive JOINs, I recommend you stay with your current design.
If you do, then you could consider using natural instead of surrogate keys in the lookup tables. This way, the natural keys gets "propagated" through foreign keys to the "client" tables, resulting in less need for JOINing, at the price of increased storage space. For example, instead of having ItemTypes {Id PK, Description AK}, only have ItemTypes {Description PK}, and you no longer have to JOIN with ItemTypes just to get the Description - it was automatically propagated down the FK.
You can store them in a text search (ie nosql) database like Lucene. They are ridiculously fast.
I have implemented this to great effect. Note though that there is some initial setup to overcome, but not much. Lucene queries on ids are a snap to write.
The "one big lookup table" approach has the problem of allowing for silly values -- for example "color: yellow" for trucks in the inventory when you only have cars with "color: yellow". One Big Lookup Table: Just Say No.
Off-hand, I would go with the natural keys for the lookup tables unless you would have cases like "the 2012 model CX300R was red but the 2010-2011 models CX300R were blue (and model ID also denotes color)".
Traditionally if you ask a DBA they will say you should have separate tables. If you asked a programmer they would say using the single table is easier. (Makes making a Edit Status webpage very easy you just make one webpage and pass it a different LookupTypeID instead of lots of similar pages)
However now with ORM the SQL and Code to access different status tables is not really any extra effort.
I have used both method and both work fine. I must admit using a single status table is easiest. I have done this for small apps and also enterprise apps and have noticed no performance impacts.
Finally the other field I normally like to add on these generic status tables is a OrderBy field so you can sort the status in your UI by something other than the description if needed.
Sounds like a good idea to me. You can have the ID and LookupTypeID as a multi-attribute primary key. You just need to know what all of the different LookupTypeIDs represent and you should be good as gold.
EDIT: As for the standards/best-practices, I honestly don't have an answer for you. I've only had one semester of SQL/database design so I haven't been all too exposed to the matter.
I am putting together a schema for a database. The goal of the database is to track applications in our department. I have a repeated problem that I am trying to solve.
For example, I have an "Applications" table. I want to keep track if any application uses a database or a bug tracking system so right now I have fields in the Applications table called
Table: Applications
UsesDatabase (bit)
Database_ID (int)
UsesBugTracking (bit)
BugTracking_ID (int)
Table: Databases:
id
name
Table: BugTracking:
id
name
Should I consolidate the "uses" column with the respective ID columns so there is only one bug tracking column and only one database column in the applications table?
Any best practice here for database design?
NOTE: I would like to run reports like "Percent of Application that use bug tracking" (although I guess either approach could generate this data.)
You could remove the "uses" fields and make the id columns nullable, and let a null value mean that it doesn't use the feature. This is a common way of representing a missing value.
Edit:
To answer your note, you can easily get that statistics like this:
select
count(*) as TotalApplications,
count(Database_ID) as UsesDatabase,
count(BugTracking_ID) as UsesBugTracking
from
Applications
Why not get rid of the two Use fields and simply let a NULL value in the _ID fields indicate that the record does not use that application (bug tracking or database)
Either solution works. However, if you think you may want to occasionally just get a list of applications which do / do not have databases / bugtracking consider that having the flag fields reduces the query by one (or two) joins.
Having the bit fields is slightly denormalized, as you have to keep two fields in sync to keep one piece of data updated, but I tend to prefer them for cases like this for the reason I gave in the prior paragraph.
Another option would be to have the field nullable, and put null in it for those entries which do not have DBs / etc, but then you run into problems with foreign key constraints.
I don't think there is any one supreme right way, just consider the tradeoffs and go with what makes sense for your application.
I would use 3 tables for the objects: Application, Database, and BugTracking. Then I would use 2 join tables to do 1-to-many joins: ApplicationDatabases, and ApplicationBugTracking.
The 2 join tables would have both an application_id and the id of the other table. If an application used a single database, it would have a single ApplicationDatabases record joining them together. Using this setup, an application could have 0 database (no records for this app in the ApplicationDatabases table), or many databases (multiple records for this app in the ApplicationDatabases table).
"Should i consolidate the "uses" column"
If I look at your problem statement, then there either is no "uses" column at all, or there are two. In either case, it is wrong of you to speak of "THE" uses column.
May I politely suggest that you learn to be PRECISE when asking questions ?
Yes using null in the foreign key fields should be fine - it seems superfluous to have the bit fields.
Another way of doing it (though it might be considered evil by database people ^^) is to default them to 0 and add in an ID 0 data row in both bugtrack and database tables with a name of "None"... when you do the reports, you'll have to do some more work unless you present the "None" values as they are as well with a neat percentage...
To answer the edited question-
Yes, the fields should be combined, with NULL meaning that the application doesn't have a database (or bug tracker).
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...