I'm in the process of structuring a databasemodel for my new project. For all the entities in my model (which is a cms, and the entities as such f.ex: page, content, menu, template and a bunch of others) they all have in common the same attributes on dates and names.
More specifically each entity contains the following for the dates: IsCreated, IsValidFrom, IsPublished, IsDeleted, IsEdited and IsExpired, and for names: CreatedByNameId, ValidFromByNameId, PublishedByNameId and so on...
I'm going to use EF5 for mapping to objects.
The question is as simple: What is the best way to structure this: Having all the fields in every table (which I am not obliged to...) or to have two separate tables which the other can relate to...?
Thanks in advance /Finn.
First of all - give this a read - http://www.agiledata.org/essays/mappingObjects.html
You really need to think about your queries/access paths. There are many tradeoffs between different implementations.
In reply to your example though,
Given the following setup:
COMMON
ValidFromByNameId
SPECIFIC1
FieldA
SPECIFIC2
FieldB
Querying by the COMMON attributes is easy but you'll have to work some magic when pulling up the subclasses (unless EF5 does it for you)
If the primary questions you're asking are about specific1 and specific2 then perhaps this isn't the right model. having the COMMON table doesn't really buy you much necessary as it will introduce a join to load any Specific1 object. In this case, i'd probably just have duplicate columns.
This answer is intentionally partial as a full answer is better handled by the numerous articles and blogs already out there. Search for "mapping object hierarchies to databases"
Related
I'm currently in the process of building another generic Blog style website, and I got to thinking. Where I usually use a separate table for Posts and another for Comments and then join them using FK's. I began to wonder, are they really worthy of separate tables?
For example properties they both share include:
ID (int)
Title (string)
Body (text)
Poster (FK)
Created At (Datetime)
Updated At (DateTime)
Likes/Dislikes(ints)
Etc..
One Post Has(optional) Many Comments,Many Comments have one Post, but also One Comment, may also have many Comments.
Now would it make more sense. For a table to contain both, Comments and Posts, and self reference them from within? Having a separate lookup table for containing what each type of entity is.
Then however, if a Post is a Comment, and a comment is no different to a post. Except for in a view context, should posted Images also be contained within the same table? As these to, can have likes/comments/name etc.
Question in short: Do blog Posts and Comments belong in the same table?
I'm going to offer you a practical answer.
As a rule of thumb, when you have two apparent sub-types with only one or two different predicates then it isn't necessarily helpful to store them in separate physical tables.
Your logical model should make a distinction between posts and comments, because they have different relationships.
For your physical model, you really only have that one different predicate, according to your description. The basic difference between a post and a comment seems to be the foreign key which references a parent post/comment. I'm assuming you would say a post cannot have a child post, whereas you have said that a comment can have a child comment.
With this being the only difference, I would say that for practical purposes your physical tables should combine posts and comments.
How can you decide in general?
In general it's not cut and dry when to physically sub-type your tables. All design is trade-offs. What I look for are the number of different columns between two sub-types, but also I look at what those columns are and how much they might impact my application logic.
Having more than a few different predicates is usually a pretty good sign that you should be sub-typing physically. However, if these columns are just coming along for the ride, as it were, and don't impact your application logic too much, then maybe they should just be nullable columns on a combined table.
On the other hand, maybe there is only one different column between two sub-types, but that column completely changes the way your application behaves. In that case, maybe for the sake of keeping your code cleaner you should physically sub-type for that column alone.
Currently scoping out a new system. Like many systems, it will be required to store documents and link them to other kinds of item. In this instance a Document object can belong to a Job or it can belong to an Item (which in turn belongs to a Job).
We could do this by having a JobId and an ItemId against a Document and leaving one or the other blank if necessary, but that's going to mean annoying conditional logic in the handling code. So, two link tables seems a better idea.
However, it is likely that we will need to link Documents to other items in the system at some point in the future. There are Company and User objects, for example, and we might want to record Documents against those. There may be more.
That would entail a proliferation of link tables which, while effective, is messy and hard to follow.
This solution is in SQL Server and will be handled in code via Entity Framework.
Are there any design principles that can allow us to hook up Document objects with a variety of other system objects as required in a neater and more flexible way?
You could store two values: the id, and the type of object to which the document is attached. It doesn't allow the use of foreign keys, but is compatible with many application development frameworks.
If you have the partitioning option then you could dedicate different partitions to different object types.
You could also have multiple tables, one for job documents, one for item documents, and get an overview of all of them with a view that UNION ALL's them together. If you need uniqueness in that result set then you could use UUIDs for the primary key, or add an extra column to the view to express from which table the row was read.
I have to implement a testing platform. My database needs the following tables: Students, Teachers, Admins, Personnel and others. I would like to know if it's more efficient to have the FirstName and LastName in each of these tables, or to have another table, Persons, and each of the other table to be linked to this one with PersonID.
Personally, I like it this way, although trickier to implement, because I think it's cleaner, especially if you look at it from the object-oriented point of view. Would this add an unnecessary overhead to the database?
Don't know if it helps to mention I would like to use SQL Server and ADO.NET Entity Framework.
As you've explicitly mentioned OO and that you're using EntityFramework, perhaps its worth approaching the problem instead from how the framework is intended to work - rather than just building a database structure and then trying to model it?
Entity Framework Code First Inheritance : Table Per Hierarchy and Table Per Type is a nice introduction to the various strategies that you could pick from.
As for the note on adding unnecessary overhead to the database - I wouldn't worry about it just yet. EF is generally about getting a product built more rapidly and as it has to cope with a more general case, doesn't always produce the most efficient SQL. If the performance is a problem after your application is built, working and correct you can revisit and fix up the most inefficient stuff then.
If there is a person overlap between the mentioned tables, then yes, you should separate them out into a Persons table.
If you are only tracking what role each Person has (i.e. Student vs. Teacher etc) then you might consider just having the following three tables: Persons, Roles, and a bridge table PersonRoles.
On the other hand, if each role has it's own unique fields, then you should carry on as you are and leave each of these tables separate with a foreign key of PersonID.
If the attributes (i.e. First Name, Last Name, Gender etc) of these entities (i.e. Students, Teachers, Admins and Personnel) are exactly the same then you could just make a single table for all the entities with PersonType or Role attribute added to distinguish each person's role. However, if the entities has a lot of different attributes then it would be better that you create separate tables otherwise you will have normalization problem.
Yes that is a very bad way of structuring a DB. The DB structure should be designed based on the Normalizations.
Please check the normalization forms.
U should avoid the duplicate data as much as possible, else the queries will become slower.
And the main problem is when u r trying to get data that is associated with more than one or two tables.
I'm currently building a forum component for a larger application and I'm considering different approaches to certain parts of the database schema. In particular, I am considering representing topics and posts in a single table. While I view topics and posts as practically the same, I feel a bit apprehensive as this may make things less flexible in the future.
When topics of a particular forum are queried, the title and first post will be shown as well as some of the user information (basically the name and avatar). In this application, there are various attributes that are used by both topics and posts except for views and replies; and perhaps title, and forum_id(forum_id because that would mean potentially hundreds of records need to be affected if a topic is changed to another forum as opposed to changing the forum_id attribute in the topic relation).
The tables look something like what I have below here:
TOPIC POST
topic_id poster_id
forum_id topic_id
poster_id content
title upvote
views dnvote
replies closed
post_id deleted
last_edited
last_editor
parent_id
content
post_id
Doing it this way, using table inheritance, generating the posts in the topic would require a 4-table join via TOPIC, POST, USER, and TOPIC_TYPE.
On the other hand, if I decide to take the single table approach, should I simply leave the views, replies, title, and forum_id attributes as null if the topic_type is a regular post? (topic_type references an appropriate icon for the type of topic displayed, and will be used for statistics and etc.)
If you are definitely committed to using relational technology (I would consider NoSQL db for this like Mongo, etc. as well) I would separate into two tables as you proposed.
Your case here is a fundamental of relational master-detail design or whole-parts and I think that two tables are appropriate.
I think in this scenario simple normalization is preferred. It will also be useful to generate different types of reports as well. Although single table may be used but as you have designed the table in this case if you use two tables that would be more manageable to avoid entry of same value multiple times.
It might be worthwhile to distinguish between a "topic" and a "topic starter" as such. A "topic starter" is a comment that is not a reply. Every topic has exactly one topic starter, which could be referenced by a foreign key in the topic table.
Other than that, I agree with both your analysis and your design.
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.