Suppose I've got two databases with the same schema, but with different data. What if I want to export one database data into the other? This could be done without much inconvenience if there were no id conflicts. However, not only there will be id conflicts between members of the same model (like there's a user with id 1 in the first database and a completely different user with the same id in the second database), but also trouble arises when you've got foreign key columns referring to ids which will have to change to avoid conflict.
I was wondering if there was any quick and clean way to do this. Thanks
Related
In our database design we have a couple of tables that describe different objects but which are of the same basic type. As describing the actual tables and what each column is doing would take a long time I'm going to try to simplify it by using a similar structured example based on a job database.
So say we have following tables:
These tables have no connections between each other but share identical columns. So the first step was to unify the identical columns and introduce a unique personId:
Now we have the "header" columns in person that are then linked to the more specific job tables using a 1 to 1 relation using the personId PK as the FK. In our use case a person can only ever have one job so the personId is also unique across the Taxi driver, Programmer and Construction worker tables.
While this structure works we now have the use case where in our application we get the personId and want to get the data of the respective job table. This gets us to the problem that we can't immediately know what kind of job the person with this personId is doing.
A few options we came up with to solve this issue:
Deal with it in the backend
This means just leaving the architecture as it is and look for the right table in the backend code. This could mean looking through every table present and/or construct a semi-complicated join select in which we have to sift through all columns to find the ones which are filled.
All in all: Possible but means a lot of unecessary selects. We also would like to keep such database oriented logic in the actual database.
Using a Type Field
This means adding a field column in the Person table filled for example with numbers to determine the correct child table like:
So you could add a 0 in Type if it's a taxi driver, a 1 if it's a programmer and so on...
While this greatly reduced the amount of backend logic we then have to make sure that the numbers we use in the Type field are known in the backend and don't ever change.
Use separate IDs for each table
That means every job gets its own ID (has to be nullable) in Person like:
Now it's easy to find out which job each person has due to the others having an empty ID.
So my question is: Which one of these designs is the best practice? Am i missing an obvious solution here?
Bill Karwin made a good explanation on a problem similar to this one. https://stackoverflow.com/a/695860/7451039
We've now decided to go with the second option because it seem to come with the least drawbacks as described by the other commenters and posters. As there was no actual answer portraying the second option as a solution i will try to summarize our reasoning:
Against Option 1:
There is no way to distinguish the type from looking at the parent table. As a result the backend would have to include all logic which includes scanning all tables for the that contains the id. While you can compress most of the logic into a single big Join select it would still be a lot more logic as opposed to the other options.
Against Option 3:
As #yuri-g said this one is technically not possible as the separate IDs could not setup as primary keys. They would have to be nullable and as a result can't be indexed, essentially rendering the parent table useless as one of the reasons for it was to have a unique personID across the tables.
Against a single table containing all columns:
For smaller use cases as the one i described in the question this might me viable but we are talking about a bunch of tables with each having roughly 2-6 columns. This would make this option turn into a column-mess really quickly.
Against a flat design with a key-value table:
Our properties have completly different data types, different constraints and foreign key relations. All of this would not be possible/difficult in this design.
Against custom database objects containt the child specific properties:
While this option that #Matthew McPeak suggested might be a viable option for a lot of people our database design never really used objects so introducing them to the mix would likely cause confusion more than it would help us.
In favor of the second option:
This option is easy to use in our table oriented database structure, makes it easy to distinguish the proper child table and does not need a lot of reworking to introduce. Especially since we already have something similar to a Type table that we can easily use for this purpose.
Third option, as you describe it, is impossible: no RDBMS (at least, of I personally know about) would allow you to use NULLs in PK (even composite).
Second is realistic.
And yes, first would take up to N queries to poll relatives in order to determine the actual type (where N is the number of types).
Although you won't escape with one query in second case either: there would always be two of them, because you cant JOIN unless you know what exactly you should be joining.
So basically there are flaws in your design, and you should consider other options there.
Like, denormalization: line non-shared attributes into the parent table anyway, then fields become nulls for non-correpondent types.
Or flexible, flat list of attribute-value pairs related through primary key (yes, schema enforcement is a trade-off).
Or switch to column-oriented DB: that's a case for it.
My problem relates to DB schema developing and is as follows.
I am developing a purchasing module, in which I want to use for purchasing items and SERVICES.
Following is my EER diagram, (note that service has very few specialized attributes – max 2)
My problem is to keep products and services in two tables or just in one table?
One table option –
Reduces complexity as I will only need to specify item id which refers to item table which will have an “item_type” field to identify whether it’s a product or a service
Two table option –
Will have to refer separate product or service in everywhere I want to refer to them and will have to keep “item_type” field in every table which refers to either product or service?
Currently planning to use option 1, but want to know expert opinion on this matter. Highly appreciate your time and advice. Thanks.
I'd certainly go to the "two tables" option. You see, you have to distinguish Products and Services, so you may either use switch(item_type) { ... } in your program or entirely distinct code paths for Product and for Service. And if a need for updating the DB schema arises, switch is harder to maintain.
The second reason is NULLs. I'd advise avoid them as much as you can — they create more problems than they solve. With two tables you can declare all fields non-NULL and forget about NULL-processing. With one table option, you have to manually write code to ensure that if item_type=product, then Product-specific fields are not NULL, and Service-specific ones are, and that if item_type=service, then Service-specific fields are not NULL, and Product-specific ones are. That's not quite pleasant work, and the DBMS can't do it for you (there is no NOT NULL IF another_field = value column constraint in SQL or anything like this).
Go with two tables. It's easier to support. I once saw a DB where everything, every single piece of data went in just two tables — there were pages and pages of code to make sure that necessary fields are not NULL.
If I were to implement I would have gone for the Two table option, It's kinda like the first rule of normalization of the schema. To remove multi-valued attributes. Using item_type is not recommended. Once you create separate tables you dont need to use the item_type you can just use the foreign key relationship.
Consider reading this article :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
It should help.
I'm new to databases. I have 4 tables in total: 3 tables are populated automatically when the user logs on to Facebook. I want the values of the primary keys form those tables to be populated into the 4th table. How do I do this... I need help soon!
This is how the tables look:
table:attributes
fb_user : fb_uid, birhtday, gender, email.
company_master : com_id, com_name.
position_master : pos_id, pos_name.
And the 4th table goes like this:
[table]:[attributes]
work_history : work_id, fb_uid, com_id, pos_id.
fb_uid, pos_id and com_id are primary keys.
How to perform this using less database operations? Is there any way to use triggers for this to optimize?
Firstly what type of database are you using? Secondly, this seems to be a database design issue. You really should use a single unique primary key across all tables instead of using different primaries and mapping them. Since your using Facebook it would make sense to use their Facebook id as the primary for all tables then store the other ids as unique fields. This would also allow you to easily use useful features like joins to retrieve data from multiple tables at once. If this isn't practical, since for example, your using multiple logins (Facebook Google, etc) for the same user, you would then want to have a lookup table like you suggest as the driving table then use it to help populated the others. Ideally you want to minimize redundant data as much as possible to reduce the risk of data inconsistencies. If you are new to databases you should do some reading on database design and database normalization. A good design will help with scalability and prevent a lot of headaches and frustration.
I'm working on a multi-user internet database-driven website with SQL Server 2008 / LinqToSQL / custom-made repositories as the DAL. I have run across a normalization problem which can lead to an inconsistent database state if exploited correctly and I am wondering how to deal with the problem.
The problem: Several different companies have access to my website. They should be able to track their Projects and Clients at my website. Some (but not all) of the projects should be assignable to clients.
This results in the following database schema:
**Companies:**
ID
CompanyName
**Clients:**
ID
CompanyID (not nullable)
FirstName
LastName
**Projects:**
ID
CompanyID (not nullable)
ClientID (nullable)
ProjectName
This leads to the following relationships:
Companies-Clients (1:n)
Companies-Projects (1:n)
Clients-Projects(1:n)
Now, if a user is malicious, he might for example insert a Project with his own CompanyID, but with a ClientID belonging to another user, leaving the database in an inconsistent state.
The problem occurs in a similar fashion all over my database schema, so I'd like to solve this in a generic way if any possible. I had the following two ideas:
Check for database writes that might lead to inconsistencies in the DAL. This would be generic, but requires some additional database queries before an update and create queries are performed, so it will result in less performance.
Create an additional table for the clients-Projects relationship and make sure the relationships created this way are consistent. This also requires some additional select queries, but far less than in the first case. On the other hand it is not generic, so it is easier to miss something in the long run, especially when adding more tables / dependencies to the database.
What would you do? Is there any better solution I missed?
Edit: You might wonder why the Projects table has a CompanyID. This is because I want users to be able to add projects with and without clients. I need to keep track of which company (and therefore which website user) a clientless project belongs to, which is why a project needs a CompanyID.
I'd go with with the latter, having one or more tables that define the allowable relationships between entities.
Note, there's no circularity in the references you have, so the title is misleading.
What you have is the possibility of conflicting data, that's different.
Why do you have "CompanyID" in the project table? The ID of the company involved is implicitly given by the client you link to. You don't need it.
Remove that column and you've removed your problem.
Additionally, what is the purpose of the "name" column in the client table? Can you have a client with one name, differing from the name of the company?
Or is "client" the person at that company?
Edit: Ok with the clarification about projects without companies, I would separate out the references, but you're not going to get rid of the problem you're describing without constraints that prevent multiple references being made.
A simple constraint for your existing tables would be that not both the CompanyID and ClientID fields of the project row could be non-null at the same time.
If you want to use the table like this and avoid the all the new queries just put triggers on the table and when user tries to insert row with wrong data the trigger with stop him.
Best Regards,
Iordan
My first thought would be to create a special client record for each company with name "No client". Then eliminate the CompanyId from the Project table, and if a project has no client, use the "No client" record rather than a "normal" client record. If processing of such no-client's is special, add a flag to the no-client record to explicitly identify it. (I'd hate to rely on the name being "No Client" or something like that -- too fuzzy.)
Then there would be no way to store inconsistent data so the problem would go away.
In the end I implemented a completely generic solution which solves my problem without much runtime overhead and without requiring any changes to the database. I'll describe it here in case someone else has the same problem.
First off, the approach only works because the only table that other tables are referencing through multiple paths is the Companies table. Since this is the case in my database, I only have to check whether all n:1 referenced entities of each entity that is to be created / updated / deleted are referencing the same company (or no company at all).
I am enforcing this by deriving all of my Linq entities from one of the following types:
SingleReferenceEntityBase - The norm. Only checks (via reflection) if there really is only one reference (no matter if transitive or intransitive) to the Companies table. If this is the case, the references to the companies table cannot become inconsistent.
MultiReferenceEntityBase - For special cases such as the Projects table above. Asks all directly referenced entities what company ID they are referencing. Raises an exception if there is an inconsistency. This costs me a few select queries per CRUD operation, but since MultiReferenceEntities are much rarer than SingleReferenceEntities, this is negligible.
Both of these types implement a "CheckReferences" and I am calling it whenever the linq entity is written to the database by partially implementing the OnValidate(System.Data.Linq.ChangeAction action) method which is automatically generated for all Linq entities.
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).