I'm working with two consultants in one project. The thing is we reached a point where both of them cannot get into an agreement and each offer a different approach.
The thing is we have a store with four departments and we want to find the best approach for working with all of them in the same database.
Each department sell different products: Cars, Boats, Jetskies and Motorbikes.
When the data is inserted or updated in each department there are some triggers to be fires so different workflows will begin, when adding a new car there are certain requirements that needs to be checked as well as the details of the car that are completely different than a boat. Also, regarding the data there are not many fields there are in common, I would say so far only the brand, color, model and year, everything else is specific for each deparment due to the different products and how they work with them..
Consultant one says:
Create one table for all the departments and use a column to identify what department the row belongs to, this way you will have only one trigger and inside the trigger you will then call the function/mehod you need for each record type.
Reason: you only have one table (with over 200 fields) and one trigger, is easier to maintain. Also if you need to report you just need to query one table and filter based on the record type. If you need to report for all the items you don't need to have multiple joins.
Consultant two says:
Create one table for each deparment and a trigger for each table.
Reason: you will have smaller tables (aprox 50 fields each) and is more flexible and you have it all separated. If you want to report you need to join the tables as you want to include data from different places.
I see the advantages of having everything in one place but if I want to expand or change anything I have the feeling I will bre creating a beast table as the data grows.
On the other side keep it separated look more appealing but will need to setup everything for each different table.
What would you say is the best approach?
You should probably listen to consultant number two.
The thing is, all design is trade-offs. You need to assess the pros and cons of each approach and you need to think about the risks that each design entails.
What happens when your design grows? (department 5, more details per product type,...)
What happens when the system scales up to higher transaction volumes?
What happens when your business rules change?
I've been doing this for a long time and I've seen some pendulums swing back and forth when it comes to what is "in fashion" as far as database and software best practices.
I'd say right now the prevailing wisdom is that separation of concerns is innately good. This means you should keep your program logic (trigger code) separate for each department. This makes sense because your logic will vary from one product type to the next since they mostly have distinct columns.
This second point is also important, because your stake in the ground for a transactional system should always be start with third normal form (or higher, if necessary). Sometimes you can get away without it, but four different types of objects with 40 or more distinct attributes each doesn't sound like a good candidate for jamming everything into one table. How do you keep track of which columns belong to which type of product, for example? A separate table for each product type keeps this clean and simple - and importantly - easy for your support programmers to understand.
Contrary to what consultant one is saying, having one trigger instead of four is not likely to be easier to maintain if that one trigger is a big bowl of spaghetti, or even four tidy, well written subroutines joined together with a switch type statement.
These days, programmers favour short, atomic, single-purpose functions (triggers, in your case).
If there is enough common data and common business logic that doing it four times seems awkward, then maybe you have a good candidate for a super-type / sub-type design.
I'll say one
These are all Products, It doesn't matter that its a Bike or a Car. You can control the fields and the object by RecordTypes and Page layouts and that will save you from having 4 Objects, which means potentially 8 new classes(if it follows my pattern it could be up to 20+) + all of the workflow rules and validation rules across the these new objects, it will be very hard to maintain a structure that has 4 objects but are all the same thing.. Tracking Products.
Down the road if you decide to add a new product such as planes, it will be very easy to add a plane to this object and the code will be able to pick up from there if needed. You will definitely need Record Types to manage each Product. The trigger code shouldn't be an issue if the consultants are building it properly meaning a trigger should never have any business logic so as long as that is followed all of the code will be maintainable
I will go with one.
I assume you have a large number of products and this list will grow in future. All these are Products at the end. They will have some common fields and common logic.
If you use Process Builder with Invocable classes instead of Triggers, you may be able to get away with just configuration changes while adding a new object, if its fields and functionality are same/similar to a existing object.
There may also be limitation on the number of different objects a profile has access to based on your license types.
Salesforce has a standard object called Product. Its a single object to be classifies based on record type.
I would have gone with approach two if this was not salesforce. Based on how salesforce works and the limitations it imposes one seems like a better and cleaner solution.
I would say option 2.
Why?
(1) I would find one table with 200+ columns harder to maintain. You're also then going to have to expose fields for an object that doesn't need said fields.
(2) You are also going to have to "hide" logic inside the trigger which then decides to do different actions based on the type of department etc...
(3) Option 2 involves more "scaffolding" and separate objects but those are objects are inherently smaller and easier to maintain and don't specifically hide logic or cause any sort of ambiguity.
(4) Option 2 abides by the single responsibility principle. Not everyone follows this I understand but I find it a good guiding principle, as the responsibility for the data lies with the individual table and the responsibility for triggered the action lies with the individual trigger as opposed to just being one mammoth entity/trigger.
** I would state that I am simply looking at this from a software development perspective, I am not sure whether or not SalesForce would handle this setup, but it is the way I would personally prefer to design it. :)
Option 2 for me.
You've said that there is little common data and the trigger logic is completely different. Here are some additional technical considerations.
Option 1 Warnings
The trigger would be a single point of failure and errors will be trickier to debug. I have worked with large triggers where broken logic near the top has stopped logic near the bottom from running, sometimes silently! You also have to maintain conditional guards to control the flow of logic based on the data which is another opportunity for error.
I'm not red hot on indexes but I believe performance will suffer due to no natural order of the multi-purpose data. More specific tables will yield better indexing strategies. Also, large rows can lead to fragmented indexes.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/pamitt/2010/12/23/notes-sql-server-index-fragmentation-types-and-solutions/
You would need extra consideration when setting nullable/default constraints on each surplus field not relevant to the product in question. These subtleties can introduce bugs and might make it harder if/when you decide to work with a data layer technology such as Entity Framework. E.g. the logical difference between NULL, 0 and 'None', especially on shared columns.
I have a legacy in-house human resources web app that I'd like to rebuild using more modern technologies. Doctrine 2 is looking good. But I've not been able to find articles or documentation on how best to organise the Entities for a large-ish database (120 tables). Can you help?
My main problem is the Person table (of course! it's an HR system!). It currently has 70 columns. I want to refactor that to extract several subsets into one-to-one sub tables, which will leave me with about 30 columns. There are about 50 other supporting one-to-many tables called person_address, person_medical, person_status, person_travel, person_education, person_profession etc. More will be added later.
If I put all the doctrine associations (http://docs.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-orm/en/latest/reference/working-with-associations.html) in the Person entity class along with the set/get/add/remove methods for each, along with the original 30 columns and their methods, and some supporting utility functions then the Person entity is going to be 1000+ lines long and a nightmare to test.
FWIW i plan to create a PersonRepository to handle the common bulk queries, a PersonProfessionRepository for the bulk queries / reports on that sub table etc, and Person*Service s which will contain some of the more complex business logic where needed. So organising the rest of the app logic is fine: this is a question about how to correctly organise lots of sub-table Entities with Doctrine that all have relationships / associations back to one primary table. How do I avoid bloating out the Person entity class?
Identifying types of objects
It sounds like you have a nicely normalized database and I suggest you keep it that way. Removing columns from the people table to create separate tables for one-to-one relations isn't going to help in performance nor maintainability.
The fact that you recognize several groups of properties in the Person entity might indicate you have found cases for a Value Object. Even some of the one-to-many tables (like person_address) sound more like Value Objects than Entities.
Starting with Doctrine 2.5 (which is not yet stable at the time of this writing) it will support embedding single Value Objects. Unfortunately we will have to wait for a future version for support of collections of Value objects.
Putting that aside, you can mimic embedding Value Objects, Ross Tuck has blogged about this.
Lasagna Code
Your plan of implementing an entity, repository, service (and maybe controller?) for Person, PersonProfession, etc sounds like a road to Lasagna Code.
Without extensive knowledge about your domain, I'd say you want to have an aggregate Person, of which the Person entity is the aggregate root. That aggregate needs a single repository. (But maybe I'm off here and being simplistic, as I said, I don't know your domain.)
Creating a service for Person (and other entities / value objects) indicates data-minded thinking. For services it's better to think of behavior. Think of what kind of tasks you want to perform, and group coherent sets of tasks into services. I suspect that for a HR system you'll end up with many services that evolve around your Person aggregate.
Is Doctrine 2 suitable?
I would say: yes. Doctrine itself has no problems with large amounts of tables and large amounts of columns. But performance highly depends on how you use it.
OLTP vs OLAP
For OLTP systems an ORM can be very helpful. OLTP involves many short transactions, writing a single (or short list) of aggregates to the database.
For OLAP systems an ORM is not suited. OLAP involves many complex analytical queries, usually resulting in large object-graphs. For these kind of operations, native SQL is much more convenient.
Even in case of OLAP systems Doctrine 2 can be of help:
You can use DQL queries (in stead of native SQL) to use the power of your mapping metadata. Then use scalar or array hydration to fetch the data.
Doctrine also support arbitrary joins, which means you can join entities that are not associated to each other according by mapping metadata.
And you can make use of the NativeQuery object with which you can map the results to whatever you want.
I think a HR system is a perfect example of where you have both OLTP and OLAP. OLTP when it comes to adding a new Person to the system for example. OLAP when it comes to various reports and analytics.
So there's nothing wrong with using an ORM for transactional operations, while using plain SQL for analytical operations.
Choose wisely
I think the key is to carefully choose when to use what, on a case by case basis.
Hydrating entities is great for transactional operations. Make use of lazy loading associations which can prevent fetching data you're not going to use. But also choose to eager load certain associations (using DQL) where it makes sense.
Use scalar or array hydration when working with large data sets. Data sets usually grow where you're doing analytical operations, where you don't really need full blown entities anyway.
#Quicker makes a valid point by saying you can create specialized View objects. You can fetch only the data you need in specific cases and manually mold that data into objects. This is accompanied by his point to don't bloat the user interface with options a user with a certain role doesn't need.
A technique you might want to look into is Command Query Responsibility Segregation (CQRS).
I understood that you have a fully normalized table persons and now you are asking for how to denormalize that best.
As long as you do not hit any technical constaints (such as max 64 K Byte) I find 70 columns definitly not overloaded for a persons table in a HR system. Do yourself a favour to not segment that information for following reasons:
selects potentially become more complex
each extract table needs (an) extra index/indeces, which increases your overall memory utilization -> this sounds to be a minor issue as disk is cheap. However keep in mind that via caching the RAM to disk space utilization ratio determines your performance to a huge extend
changes become more complex as extra relations demand for extra care
as any edit/update/read view can be restricted to deal with slices of your physical data from the tables only no "cosmetics" pressure arises from end user (or even admin) perspective
In summary your the table subsetting causes lots of issues and effort but does add low if not no value.
Btw. databases are optimized for data storage. Millions of rows and some dozens of columns are no brainers at that end.
I'm working with the new version of a third party application. In this version, the database structure is changed, they say "to improve performance".
The old version of the DB had a general structure like this:
TABLE ENTITY
(
ENTITY_ID,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_1,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_2,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_3,
...
)
TABLE ENTITY_PROPERTIES
(
ENTITY_ID,
PROPERTY_KEY,
PROPERTY_VALUE
)
so we had a main table with fields for the basic properties and a separate table to manage custom properties added by user.
The new version of the DB insted has a structure like this:
TABLE ENTITY
(
ENTITY_ID,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_1,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_2,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_3,
...
)
TABLE ENTITY_PROPERTIES_n
(
ENTITY_ID_n,
CUSTOM_PROPERTY_1,
CUSTOM_PROPERTY_2,
CUSTOM_PROPERTY_3,
...
)
So, now when the user add a custom property, a new column is added to the current ENTITY_PROPERTY table until the max number of columns (managed by application) is reached, then a new table is created.
So, my question is: Is this a correct way to design a DB structure? Is this the only way to "increase performances"? The old structure required many join or sub-select, but this structute don't seems to me very smart (or even correct)...
I have seen this done before on the assumed (often unproven) "expense" of joining - it is basically turning a row-heavy data table into a column-heavy table. They ran into their own limitation, as you imply, by creating new tables when they run out of columns.
I completely disagree with it.
Personally, I would stick with the old structure and re-evaluate the performance issues. That isn't to say the old way is the correct way, it is just marginally better than the "improvement" in my opinion, and removes the need to do large scale re-engineering of database tables and DAL code.
These tables strike me as largely static... caching would be an even better performance improvement without mutilating the database and one I would look at doing first. Do the "expensive" fetch once and stick it in memory somewhere, then forget about your troubles (note, I am making light of the need to manage the Cache, but static data is one of the easiest to manage).
Or, wait for the day you run into the maximum number of tables per database :-)
Others have suggested completely different stores. This is a perfectly viable possibility and if I didn't have an existing database structure I would be considering it too. That said, I see no reason why this structure can't fit into an RDBMS. I have seen it done on almost all large scale apps I have worked on. Interestingly enough, they all went down a similar route and all were mostly "successful" implementations.
No, it's not. It's terrible.
until the max number of column (handled by application) is reached,
then a new table is created.
This sentence says it all. Under no circumstance should an application dynamically create tables. The "old" approach isn't ideal either, but since you have the requirement to let users add custom properties, it has to be like this.
Consider this:
You lose all type-safety as you have to store all values in the column "PROPERTY_VALUE"
Depending on your users, you could have them change the schema beforehand and then let them run some kind of database update batch job, so at least all the properties would be declared in the right datatype. Also, you could lose the entity_id/key thing.
Check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner-platform_effect. This certainly reeks of it
Maybe a RDBMS isn't the right thing for your app. Consider using a key/value based store like MongoDB or another NoSQL database. (http://nosql-database.org/)
From what I know of databases (but I'm certainly not the most experienced), it seems quite a bad idea to do that in your database. If you already know how many max custom properties a user might have, I'd say you'd better set the table number of columns to that value.
Then again, I'm not an expert, but making new columns on the fly isn't the kind of operations databases like. It's gonna bring you more trouble than anything.
If I were you, I'd either fix the number of custom properties, or stick with the old system.
I believe creating a new table for each entity to store properties is a bad design as you could end up bulking the database with tables. The only pro to applying the second method would be that you are not traversing through all of the redundant rows that do not apply to the Entity selected. However using indexes on your database on the original ENTITY_PROPERTIES table could help greatly with performance.
I would personally stick with your initial design, apply indexes and let the database engine determine the best methods for selecting the data rather than separating each entity property into a new table.
There is no "correct" way to design a database - I'm not aware of a universally recognized set of standards other than the famous "normal form" theory; many database designs ignore this standard for performance reasons.
There are ways of evaluating database designs though - performance, maintainability, intelligibility, etc. Quite often, you have to trade these against each other; that's what your change seems to be doing - trading maintainability and intelligibility against performance.
So, the best way to find out if that was a good trade off is to see if the performance gains have materialized. The best way to find that out is to create the proposed schema, load it with a representative dataset, and write queries you will need to run in production.
I'm guessing that the new design will not be perceivably faster for queries like "find STANDARD_PROPERTY_1 from entity where STANDARD_PROPERTY_1 = 'banana'.
I'm guessing it will not be perceivably faster when retrieving all properties for a given entity; in fact it might be slightly slower, because instead of a single join to ENTITY_PROPERTIES, the new design requires joins to several tables. You will be returning "sparse" results - presumably, not all entities will have values in the property_n columns in all ENTITY_PROPERTIES_n tables.
Where the new design may be significantly faster is when you need a compound where clause on custom properties. For instance, finding an entity where custom property 1 is true, custom property 2 is banana, and custom property 3 is not in ('kylie', 'pussycat dolls', 'giraffe') is e`(probably) faster when you can specify columns in the ENTITY_PROPERTIES_n tables instead of rows in the ENTITY_PROPERTIES table. Probably.
As for maintainability - yuck. Your database access code now needs to be far smarter, knowing which table holds which property, and how many columns are too many. The likelihood of entertaining bugs is high - there are more moving parts, and I can't think of any obvious unit tests to make sure that the database access logic is working.
Intelligibility is another concern - this solution is not in most developers' toolbox, it's not an industry-standard pattern. The old solution is pretty widely known - commonly referred to as "entity-attribute-value". This becomes a major issue on long-lived projects where you can't guarantee that the original development team will hang around.
I am not sure if there is a term to describe this, but I have observed that content management systems store all kinds of data in a single table with their bare minimum properties while the meta data is stored in another table in form of key value pairs.
for eg. everything (blog posts, pages, images, events etc) is stored in one table and considered as a post.
I understand that this allows for abstraction and easy extensibility
we are considering designing our new project this way. It is not exactly a CMS but we plan to keep adding modules to it in stages. Lets say initially there will be only posts and images on which comments can be posted. Later on we might add videos which will also have the commenting feature.
what are the drawbacks of this approach ? and will it work for a requirement like ours ?
Thanks
The drawback is that the main table will get zillions of reads (and plenty of writes, too).
This means that there will be lots of lock contentions, heavy reindexing etc.
In order to mitigate this a bit you may consider splitting the "main table" in a series of not-so-main-tables.
Say, you will have one main table for "Posts" (possibly refined through metadata or subtables for specific types of posts, like Sticky, Announcement, Shoutbox, Private...)
One main table for Images (possibly refined for gifs, jpegs etc.)
One main table for Videos...
If this is a custom application (and not intended to be something that has to be "infinitely tweakable" like a CMS or a Portal framework) I think this kind of split is acceptable, and may provide some better performance (if you expect to have large amounts of data).
Regarding your "examples" comment... first of all, if you keep comments again in a single gigantic table you may have similar problems as if you kept all type of items in it.
Assuming this is not a problem, you can obviously put a sort of reference key (you can't use the normal foreign keys, of course) that links comments to their original item.
This works fine when you go from item to comments, a bit less when you have to move from comments to the originating item. So the tradeoff is about what kind of operations would be more frequent for your problem.
Simplicity and extensibility are indeed often attractive aspects of attribute-value and (as you say) "single table of things" approaches.
There's no 100% right answer here -- depending on your performance/throughput goals and extensibility needs, this approach might work for you too.
In most cases, however, where you know what kinds of data you will store, it's usually in your interest to model distinct entities into their own tables and relate the data accordingly. RDBMSes have been architected and refined over decades to cater to this use case and to simply use tables as generic dumping grounds doesn't typically buy you any distinct advantages, except the act of delaying the inevitable need to model your data properly. Furthermore, when you boil everything into one table, you then force users outside your app itself (if you have any, for example report writers) to have to struggle with your "model within a model", which can just make folks frustrated when they write queries, etc. And you will sink to your lowest common denominator -- if you want to optimize queries about type X and you have types Y and Z in that same table in droves, they will impact performance on querying X.
Again, to be clear, there is distinct benefit to the "all things in one table" name/value style metadata approaches. I have used them myself and turned against modeling for similar reasons. However, my advice is to limit yourself to times when you really need to do that (i.e., you need to implement something before you can correctly model the space of things you will need). Most typically, I find myself doing that when I'm prototyping complex systems and I need to get something going sooner than later.
Original Question:
Hello,
I am creating very simple hobby project - browser based multiplayer game. I am stuck at designing tables for storing information about quest / skill requirements.
For now, I designed my tables in following way:
table user (basic information about users)
table stat (variety of stats)
table user_stats (connecting each user with stats)
Another example:
table monsters (basic information about npc enemies)
table monster_stats (connecting monsters with stats, using the same stat table from above)
Those were the simple cases. I must admit, that I am stuck while designing requirements for different things, e.g quests. Sample quest A might have only minimum character level requirement (and that is easy to implement) - but another one, quest B has multitude of other reqs (finished quests, gained skills, possessing specific items, etc) - what is a good way of designing tables for storing this kind of information?
In a similar manner - what is an efficient way of storing information about skill requirements? (specific character class, min level, etc).
I would be grateful for any help or information about creating database driven games.
Edit:
Thank You for the answers, yet I would like to receive more. As I am having some problems designing an rather complicated database layout for craftable items, I am starting a max bounty for this question.
I would like to receive links to articles / code snippets / anything connected with best practices of designing databases for storing game data (an good example of this kind of information is availibe on buildingbrowsergames.com).
I would be grateful for any help.
I'll edit this to add as many other pertinent issues as I can, although I wish the OP would address my comment above. I speak from several years as a professional online game developer and many more years as a hobbyist online game developer, for what it's worth.
Online games imply some sort of persistence, which means that you have broadly two types of data - one is designed by you, the other is created by the players in the course of play. Most likely you are going to store both in your database. Make sure you have different tables for these and cross-reference them properly via the usual database normalisation rules. (eg. If your player crafts a broadsword, you don't create an entire new row with all the properties of a sword. You create a new row in the player_items table with the per-instance properties, and refer to the broadsword row in the item_types table which holds the per-itemtype properties.) If you find a row of data is holding some things that you designed and some things that the player is changing during play, you need to normalise it out into two tables.
This is really the typical class/instance separation issue, and applies to many things in such games: a goblin instance doesn't need to store all the details of what it means to be a goblin (eg. green skin), only things pertinent to that instance (eg. location, current health). Some times there is a subtlety to the act of construction, in that instance data needs to be created based on class data. (Eg. setting a goblin instance's starting health based upon a goblin type's max health.) My advice is to hard-code these into your code that creates the instances and inserts the row for it. This information only changes rarely since there are few such values in practice. (Initial scores of depletable resources like health, stamina, mana... that's about it.)
Try and find a consistent terminology to separate instance data from type data - this will make life easier later when you're patching a live game and trying not to trash the hard work of your players by editing the wrong tables. This also makes caching a lot easier - you can typically cache your class/type data with impunity because it only ever changes when you, the designer, pushes new data up there. You can run it through memcached, or consider loading it all at start up time if your game has a continuous process (ie. is not PHP/ASP/CGI/etc), etc.
Remember that deleting anything from your design-side data is risky once you go live, since player-generated data may refer back to it. Test everything thoroughly locally before deploying to the live server because once it's up there, it's hard to take it down. Consider ways to be able to mark rows of such data as removed in a safe fashion - maybe a boolean 'live' column which, if set to false, means it just won't show up in the typical query. Think about the impact on players if you disable items they earned (and doubly if these are items they paid for).
The actual crafting side can't really be answered without knowing how you want to design your game. The database design must follow the game design. But I'll run through a trivial idea. Maybe you will want to be able to create a basic object and then augment it with runes or crystals or whatever. For that, you just need a one-to-many relationship between item instance and augmentation instance. (Remember, you might have item type and augmentation type tables too.) Each augmentation can specify a property of an item (eg. durability, max damage done in combat, weight) and a modifier (typically as a multiplier, eg. 1.1 to add a 10% bonus). You can see my explanation for how to implement these modifying effects here and here - the same principles apply for temporary skill and spell effects as apply for permanent item modification.
For character stats in a database driven game, I would generally advise to stick with the naïve approach of one column (integer or float) per statistic. Adding columns later is not a difficult operation and since you're going to be reading these values a lot, you might not want to be performing joins on them all the time. However, if you really do need the flexibility, then your method is fine. This strongly resembles the skill level table I suggest below: lots of game data can be modelled in this way - map a class or instance of one thing to a class or instance of other things, often with some additional data to describe the mapping (in this case, the value of the statistic).
Once you have these basic joins set up - and indeed any other complex queries that result from the separation of class/instance data in a way that may not be convenient for your code - consider creating a view or a stored procedure to perform them behind the scenes so that your application code doesn't have to worry about it any more.
Other good database practices apply, of course - use transactions when you need to ensure multiple actions happen atomically (eg. trading), put indices on the fields you search most often, use VACUUM/OPTIMIZE TABLE/whatever during quiet periods to keep performance up, etc.
(Original answer below this point.)
To be honest I wouldn't store the quest requirement information in the relational database, but in some sort of script. Ultimately your idea of a 'requirement' takes on several varying forms which could draw on different sorts of data (eg. level, class, prior quests completed, item possession) and operators (a level might be a minimum or a maximum, some quests may require an item whereas others may require its absence, etc) not to mention a combination of conjunctions and disjunctions (some quests require all requirements to be met, whereas others may only require 1 of several to be met). This sort of thing is much more easily specified in an imperative language. That's not to say you don't have a quest table in the DB, just that you don't try and encode the sometimes arbitrary requirements into the schema. I'd have a requirement_script_id column to reference an external script. I suppose you could put the actual script into the DB as a text field if it suits, too.
Skill requirements are suited to the DB though, and quite trivial given the typical game system of learning skills as you progress through levels in a certain class:
table skill_levels
{
int skill_id FOREIGN KEY;
int class_id FOREIGN KEY;
int min_level;
}
myPotentialSkillList = SELECT * FROM skill_levels INNER JOIN
skill ON skill_levels.skill_id = skill.id
WHERE class_id = my_skill
ORDER BY skill_levels.min_level ASC;
Need a skill tree? Add a column prerequisite_skill_id. And so on.
Update:
Judging by the comments, it looks like a lot of people have a problem with XML. I know it's cool to bash it now and it does have its problems, but in this case I think it works. One of the other reasons that I chose it is that there are a ton of libraries for parsing it, so that can make life easier.
The other key concept is that the information is really non-relational. So yes, you could store the data in any particular example in a bunch of different tables with lots of joins, but that's a pain. But if I kept giving you a slightly different examples I bet you'd have to modify your design ad infinitum. I don't think adding tables and modifying complicated SQL statements is very much fun. So it's a little frustrating that #scheibk's comment has been voted up.
Original Post:
I think the problem you might have with storing quest information in the database is that it isn't really relational (that is, it doesn't really fit easily into a table). That might be why you're having trouble designing tables for the data.
On the other hand, if you put your quest information directly into code, that means you'll have to edit the code and recompile each time you want to add a quest. Lame.
So if I was you I might consider storing my quest information in an XML file or something similar. I know that's the generic solution for just about anything, but in this case it sounds right to me. XML is really made for storing non-relation and/or hierarchical data, just like the stuff you need to store for your quest.
Summary: You could come up with your own schema, create your XML file, and then load it at run time somehow (or even store the XML in the database).
Example XML:
<quests>
<quest name="Return Ring to Mordor">
<characterReqs>
<level>60</level>
<finishedQuests>
<quest name="Get Double Cheeseburger" />
<quest name="Go to Vegas for the Weekend" />
</finishedQuests>
<skills>
<skill name="nunchuks" />
<skill name="plundering" />
</skills>
<items>
<item name="genie's lamp" />
<item name="noise cancelling headphones for robin williams' voice />
</items>
</characterReqs>
<steps>
<step number="1">Get to Mordor</step>
<step number="2">Throw Ring into Lava</step>
<step number="3">...</step>
<step number="4">Profit</step>
</steps>
</quest>
</quests>
It sounds like you're ready for general object oriented design (OOD) principles. I'm going to purposefully ignore the context (gaming, MMO, etc) because that really doesn't matter to how you do a design process. And me giving you links is less useful than explaining what terms will be most helpful to look up yourself, IMO; I'll put those in bold.
In OOD, the database schema comes directly from your system design, not the other way around. Your design will tell you what your base object classes are and which properties can live in the same table (the ones in 1:1 relationship with the object) versus which to make mapping tables for (anything with 1:n or n:m relationships - for exmaple, one user has multiple stats, so it's 1:n). In fact, if you do the OOD correctly, you will have zero decisions to make regarding the final DB layout.
The "correct" way to do any OO mapping is learned as a multi-step process called "Database Normalization". The basics of which is just as I described: find the "arity" of the object relationships (1:1, 1:n,...) and make mapping tables for the 1:n's and n:m's. For 1:n's you end up with two tables, the "base" table and a "base_subobjects" table (eg. your "users" and "user_stats" is a good example) with the "foreign key" (the Id of the base object) as a column in the subobject mapping table. For n:m's, you end up with three tables: "base", "subobjects", and "base_subobjects_map" where the map has one column for the base Id and one for the subobject Id. This might be necessary in your example for N quests that can each have M requirements (so the requirement conditions can be shared among quests).
That's 85% of what you need to know. The rest is how to handle inheritance, which I advise you to just skip unless you're masochistic. Now just go figure out how you want it to work before you start coding stuff up and the rest is cake.
The thread in #Shea Daniel's answer is on the right track: the specification for a quest is non-relational, and also includes logic as well as data.
Using XML or Lua are examples, but the more general idea is to develop your own Domain-Specific Language to encode quests. Here are a few articles about this concept, related to game design:
The Whimsy Of Domain-Specific Languages
Using a Domain Specific Language for Behaviors
Using Domain-Specific Modeling towards Computer Games Development Industrialization
You can store the block of code for a given quest into a TEXT field in your database, but you won't have much flexibility to use SQL to query specific parts of it. For instance, given the skills a character currently has, which quests are open to him? This won't be easy to query in SQL, if the quest prerequisites are encoded in your DSL in a TEXT field.
You can try to encode individual prerequisites in a relational manner, but it quickly gets out of hand. Relational and object-oriented just don't go well together. You can try to model it this way:
Chars <--- CharAttributes --> AllAttributes <-- QuestPrereqs --> Quests
And then do a LEFT JOIN looking for any quests for which no prereqs are missing in the character's attributes. Here's pseudo-code:
SELECT quest_id
FROM QuestPrereqs
JOIN AllAttributes
LEFT JOIN CharAttributes
GROUP BY quest_id
HAVING COUNT(AllAttributes) = COUNT(CharAttributes);
But the problem with this is that now you have to model every aspect of your character that could be a prerequisite (stats, skills, level, possessions, quests completed) as some kind of abstract "Attribute" that fits into this structure.
This solves this problem of tracking quest prerequisites, but it leaves you with another problem: the character is modeled in a non-relational way, essentially an Entity-Attribute-Value architecture which breaks a bunch of relational rules and makes other types of queries incredibly difficult.
Not directly related to the design of your database, but a similar question was asked a few weeks back about class diagram examples for an RPG
I'm sure you can find something useful in there :)
Regarding your basic structure, you may (depending on the nature of your game) want to consider driving toward convergence of representation between player character and non-player characters, so that code that would naturally operate the same on either doesn't have to worry about the distinction. This would suggest, instead of having user and monster tables, having a character table that represents everything PCs and NPCs have in common, and then a user table for information unique to PCs and/or user accounts. The user table would have a character_id foreign key, and you could tell a player character row by the fact that a user row exists corresponding to it.
For representing quests in a model like yours, the way I would do it would look like:
quest_model
===============
id
name ['Quest for the Holy Grail', 'You Killed My Father', etc.]
etc.
quest_model_req_type
===============
id
name ['Minimum Level', 'Skill', 'Equipment', etc.]
etc.
quest_model_req
===============
id
quest_id
quest_model_req_type_id
value [10 (for Minimum Level), 'Horseback Riding' (for Skill), etc.]
quest
===============
id
quest_model_id
user_id
status
etc.
So a quest_model is the core definition of the quest structure; each quest_model can have 0..n associated quest_model_req rows, which are requirements specific to that quest model. Every quest_model_req is associated with a quest_model_req_type, which defines the general type of requirement: achieving a Minimum Level, having a Skill, possessing a piece of Equipment, and so on. The quest_model_req also has a value, which configures the requirement for this specific quest; for example, a Minimum Level type requirement might have a value of 20, meaning you must be at least level 20.
The quest table, then, is individual instances of quests that players are undertaking or have undertaken. The quest is associated with a quest_model and a user (or perhaps character, if you ever want NPCs to be able to do quests!), and has a status indicating where the progress of the quest stands, and whatever other tracking turns out useful.
This is a bare-bones structure that would, of course, have to be built out to accomodate the needs of particular games, but it should illustrate the direction I'd recommend.
Oh, and since someone else threw around their credentials, mine are that I've been a hobbyist game developer on live, public-facing projects for 16 years now.
I'd be extremely careful of what you actually store in a DB, especially for an MMORPG. Keep in mind, these things are designed to be MASSIVE with thousands of users, and game code has to execute excessively quickly and send a crap-ton of data over the network, not only to the players on their home connections but also between servers on the back-end. You're also going to have to scale out eventually and databases and scaling out are not two things that I feel mix particularly well, particularly when you start sharding into different regions and then adding instance servers to your shards and so on. You end up with a whole lot of servers talking to databases and passing a lot of data, some of which isn't even relevant to the game at all (SQL text going to a SQL server is useless network traffic that you should cut down on).
Here's a suggestion: Limit your SQL database to storing only things that will change as players play the game. Monsters and monster stats will not change. Items and item stats will not change. Quest goals will not change. Don't store these things in a SQL database, instead store them in the code somewhere.
Doing this means that every server that ever lives will always know all of this information without ever having to query a database. Now, you don't store quests at all, you just store accomplishments of the player and the game programatically determines the affects of those quests being completed. You don't waste data transferring information between servers because you're only sending event ID's or something of that nature (you can optimize the data you pass by only using just enough bits to represent all the event ID's and this will cut down on network traffic. May seem insignificant but nothing is insignificant in massive network apps).
Do the same thing for monster stats and item stats. These things don't change during gameplay so there's no need to keep them in a DB at all and therefore this information NEVER needs to travel over the network. The only thing you store is the ID of the items or monster kills or anything like that which is non-deterministic (i.e. it can change during gameplay in a way which you can't predict). You can have dedicated item servers or monster stat servers or something like that and you can add those to your shards if you end up having huge numbers of these things that occupy too much memory, then just pass the data that's necessary for a particular quest or area to the instance server that is handling that thing to cut down further on space, but keep in mind that this will up the amount of data you need to pass down the network to spool up a new instance server so it's a trade-off. As long as you're aware of the consequences of this trade-off, you can use good judgement and decide what you want to do. Another possibility is to limit instance servers to a particular quest/region/event/whatever and only equip it with enough information to the thing it's responsible for, but this is more complex and potentially limits your scaling out since resource allocation will become static instead of dynamic (if you have 50 servers of each quest and suddenly everyone goes on the same quest, you'll have 49 idle servers and one really swamped server). Again, it's a trade-off so be sure you understand it and make good choices for your application.
Once you've identified exactly what information in your game is non-deterministic, then you can design a database around that information. That becomes a bit easier: players have stats, players have items, players have skills, players have accomplishments, etc, all fairly easy to map out. You don't need descriptions for things like skills, accomplishments, items, etc, or even their effects or names or anything since the server can determine all that stuff for you from the ID's of those things at runtime without needing a database query.
Now, a lot of this probably sounds like overkill to you. After all, a good database can do queries very rapidly. However, your bandwidth is extremely precious, even in the data center, so you need to limit your use of it to only what is absolutely necessary to send and only send that data when it's absolutely necessary that it be sent.
Now, for representing quests in code, I would consider the specification pattern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_pattern). This will allow you to easily build up quest goals in terms of what events are needed to ensure that the specification for completing that quest is met. You can then use LUA (or something) to define your quests as you build the game so that you don't have to make massive code changes and rebuild the whole damn thing to make it so that you have to kill 11 monsters instead of 10 to get the Sword of 1000 truths in a particular quest. How to actually do something like that I think is beyond the scope of this answer and starts to hit the edge of my knowledge of game programming so maybe someone else on here can help you out if you choose to go that route.
Also, I know I used a lot of terms in this answer, please ask if there are any that you are unfamiliar with and I can explain them.
Edit: didn't notice your addition about craftable items. I'm going to assume that these are things that a player can create specifically in the game, like custom items. If a player can continually change these items, then you can just combine the attributes of what they're crafted as at runtime but you'll need to store the ID of each attribute in the DB somewhere. If you make a finite number of things you can add on (like gems in Diablo II) then you can eliminate a join by just adding that number of columns to the table. If there are a finite number of items that can be crafted and a finite number of ways that differnet things can be joined together into new items, then when certain items are combined, you needn't store the combined attributes; it just becomes a new item which has been defined at some point by you already. Then, they just have that item instead of its components. If you clarify the behavior your game is to have I can add additional suggestions if that would be useful.
I would approach this from an Object Oriented point of view, rather than a Data Centric point of view. It looks like you might have quite a lot of (poss complex) objects - I would recommend getting them modeled (with their relationships) first, and relying on an ORM for persistence.
When you have a data-centric problem, the database is your friend. What you have done so far seems to be quite right.
On the other hand, the other problems you mention seem to be behaviour-centric. In this case, an object-oriented analisys and solution will work better.
For example:
Create a quest class with specificQuest child classes. Each child should implement a bool HasRequirements(Player player) method.
Another option is some sort of rules engine (Drools, for example if you are using Java).
If i was designing a database for such a situation, i might do something like this:
Quest
[quest properties like name and description]
reqItemsID
reqSkillsID
reqPlayerTypesID
RequiredItems
ID
item
RequiredSkills
ID
skill
RequiredPlayerTypes
ID
type
In this, the ID's map to the respective tables then you retrieve all entries under that ID to get the list of required items, skills, what have you. If you allow dynamic creation of items then you should have a mapping to another table that contains all possible items.
Another thing to keep in mind is normalization. There's a long article here but i've condensed the first three levels into the following more or less:
first normal form means that there are no database entries where a specific field has more than one item in it
second normal form means that if you have a composite primary key all other fields are fully dependent on the entire key not just parts of it in each table
third normal is where you have no non-key fields that are dependent on other non-key fields in any table
[Disclaimer: i have very little experience with SQL databases, and am new to this field. I just hope i'm of help.]
I've done something sort of similar and my general solution was to use a lot of meta data. I'm using the term loosely to mean that any time I needed new data to make a given decision(allow a quest, allow using an item etc.) I would create a new attribute. This was basically just a table with an arbitrary number of values and descriptions. Then each character would have a list of these types of attributes.
Ex: List of Kills, Level, Regions visited, etc.
The two things this does to your dev process are:
1) Every time there's an event in the game you need to have a big old switch block that checks all these attribute types to see if something needs updating
2) Everytime you need some data, check all your attribute tables BEFORE you add a new one.
I found this to be a good rapid development strategy for a game that grows organically(not completely planned out on paper ahead of time) - but it's one big limitation is that your past/current content(levels/events etc) will not be compatible with future attributes - i.e. that map won't give you a region badge because there were no region badges when you coded it. This of course requires you to update past content when new attributes are added to the system.
just some little points for your consideration :
1) Always Try to make your "get quest" requirements simple.. and "Finish quest" requirements complicated..
Part1 can be done by "trying to make your quests in a Hierarchical order":
example :
QuestA : (Kill Raven the demon) (quest req: Lvl1)
QuestA.1 : Save "unkown" in the forest to obtain some info.. (quest req : QuestA)
QuestA.2 : Craft the sword of Crystal ... etc.. (quest req : QuestA.1 == Done)
QuestA.3 : ... etc.. (quest req : QuestA.2 == Done)
QuestA.4 : ... etc.. (quest req : QuestA.3 == Done)
etc...
QuestB (Find the lost tomb) (quest req : ( QuestA.statues == Done) )
QuestC (Go To the demons Hypermarket) ( Quest req: ( QuestA.statues == Done && player.level== 10)
etc....
Doing this would save you lots of data fields/table joints.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
if you use the above system, u can add an extra Reward field to ur quest table called "enableQuests" and add the name of the quests that needs to be enabled..
Logically.. you'd have an "enabled" field assigned to each quest..
2) A minor solution for Your crafting problem, create crafting recipes, Items that contains To-be-Crafted-item crafting requirements stored in them..
so when a player tries to craft an item.. he needs to buy a recipe 1st.. then try crafting..
a simple example of such item Desc would be:
ItemName: "Legendary Sword of the dead"
Craftevel req. : 75
Items required:
Item_1 : Blade of the dead
Item_2 : A cursed seal
item_3 : Holy Gemstone of the dead
etc...
and when he presses the "craft" Action, you can parse it and compare against his inventory/craft box...
so Your Crafting DB will have only 1 field (or 2 if u want to add a crafting LvL req. , though it will already be included in the recipe.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
Such items, can be stored in xml format in the table .. which would make it much easier to parse...
3) A similar XML System can be applied to Your quest system.. to implement quest-ending requirements..