suppose I needed to design a database for a bulltin-board website.
something like stackoverflow which means there is a topic and a series of posts
but, no threaded posts (not a tree-based design)
I thought about two main options:
Topic table and Post table. Post has "topic_id" field
no Topic table. only one big Post table.
what do you think is the more preferable option?
Well, stackoverflow is a tagged based design, where a post may have multiple topics/tags.
So to capture this in a relational-style design, you would have three tables:
POST (post_id, author, etc.)
TOPIC (topic_id, name, etc.)
POSTTOPIC (post_id, topic_id)
The reason for POSTTOPIC is because a post may have multiple tags. Using #3, it becomes easy to assign/unassign tags to a post or to find posts with certain topics. None of which a column in POST would be able to accommodate.
Related
I am pretty new to designing databases, and currently, I am working on a substantial big project of mine which requires a pretty big database. Here for I have a couple of questions to get my database ready for implementation. --Do have in mind that this project is focused on Laravel--
Question 1:
My project makes use of posts, But not only one. I have a system where three sorts of posts can be created, a standard post, a profile post and a Company post. All these posts can contain images. Currently, I have a column inside of all these different post tables called Post_photo'. Is this the right way to store pictures that associate with a post? It is illustrated in the image below,
Image: https://imgur.com/a/b9FWL
Question 2:
Every post can contain comments, And to connect these comments to a post you need to refer them one. But because I have three different variations of posts I set my comments table up like this; "Comment table consists of a Post_ID column and a Company_post_ID column" Instead of it having one Post_ID. Is this the right way to connect comments to posts? Or do I need to make another table called company_comments? If not, How can I accomplish this?
I have this same system on my likes and category table as well because I need to refer my likes and categories to posts. Is this the right way? To get a visual of what I am talking about, There is a picture above.
Thanks for taking the time to read this!
The following assumes that you are using a relational database.
Answer 1: If there can be more than one picture or file per post, then the best practice would be creating a table for photos that references the post's ID.
This way when you load the post you would query the photos table for columns containing a PostID field matching your post's id.
Answer 2: If the three types of post are very similar (and contain similar data), consider having only one post table, and include a field that indicates the type of post. For example, a field called postType could store an integer (0-2) that corresponds to the type. This would simplify your comments table, as you would only reference the postID.
As a final note, you might find this thread about storing binary data in databases helpful: (Storing files in SQL Server)
I know this might have been asked quite a few times, however I can not find any suitable solution for my problem.
I am implementing database where I have users and articles.
Now the article can be either liked or loved by any of the user.
And here comes the problem, I have to return json that contains list of all articles extended by two fields, liked and loved, because queries are gonna be connected to users.
So liked and loved might be true or false.
I thought about creating two different tables Liked & Loved where I would keep article_id - user_id and if that record exists that means user liked/loved particular article. However I am not quite sure if thats the correct way, nor I have any idea how would I build such query.
If it is important I am using postgresql together with ormlite.
Thanks for any ideas.
If I have understand your question you are basically describing an M-N relationship. A user likes/loves N articles and an article is liked/loved by M users. Such relationships are implemented via a third table that stores the association of users and articles.
You could create a table UserPreferences that links user_id and article_id and has extra columns to indicate if he liked/loved the article.
I can't tell you more about the schema since I don't know if you have other degrees about the preferences (hated, indifferent, confused etc)
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.
I'm working on a proprietary feedback application. I have a table named topics that I will to use to store suggestions, questions, and problems.
topics [ id, user_id, title, content, type[suggestion, question, problem] ]
I can easily store this data in one table using a type column to distinguish between the three different topic types.
However, there's another wrinkle: Each topic has its own responses too, and responses are very similar to the topics themselves. I'm tempted to store them in the same table as well. So now I have type (suggestion, question, problem) and subtype (topic, response).
Am I asking too much of my topics table? Should I split my data into separate tables? I'm using Postgres and Rails for this particular project.
Best way to visualise is to compare it to StackoverFlow. SO stores questions and answers in the same posts table. Now suppose instead of only questions SO decided to allow suggestions and problems. Would they still use the same table?
How often you'll want to query both topics and responses in one action? Maybe when searching, but sometimes you also want to search only topics or only responses. And how often you will need to query only one of them? Most of the time.
Go for two separate tables, you can use views with UNION clause if you want to use them together. Also at the application level you can build inheritance model on top of relational database. Say Post object with Topic and Response subclasses. Some libraries like hibernate will transparently translate query for *all posts that...` into two separate queries and union results together.
Another approach (also being one of the ways to deal with inheritance in relational store) would be to have... three tables! Posts, Topics and Response, the last two having foreign key to Posts. This way common columns are in one table and type-specific columns are separately.
Keeping topics and responses in one table is better for forums. (A lot depends on the functionality you plan to have. Is it a forum or a news/articles/reviews site?)
Most forum frameworks use this design. Including SO as you mentioned. One distinction to make clear - note that what you are defining as "topic" is generally "post". So "responses" are also posts. What other frameworks call "topic" is the thread info.
Here's an image of phpBB's schema (warning, 1MB). Notice the phpbb_posts table with post_text and topic_id (where topic_ is the title, forum id, view count, etc. but not the post_text).
StackOverflow: The PostTypeId in the Posts table - "1 is a question, 2 is an answer. Answers will have a ParentId field populated to link back to the question post."
See this related question and google for others: How would you structure a forum's DB schema?
You could query a post + responses using something like:
select t.id, t.user_id, t.title, t.content, t.type, t.parent_id,
r.id, r.user_id, r.title, r.content, r.type, r.parent_id
from topics t
left join topics r on r.parent_id = t.id
where t.parent_id = 0 and t.id = <specific id>
The part you should separate is: If you want to show thread summaries like the stackoverflow Questions/Active/Newest pages; or forum index with latest topics, response, poster, etc. then maintaining a thread_info table would help for database performance, especially if you expect high vistor volume and/or many threads and posts.
Now suppose instead of only questions SO decided to allow suggestions and problems. Would they still use the same table?
For Suggestions that depends. Look at comments for example. Different table. The nature(model) + functionality of comments is different enough to be stored separately.
Taking another example: on news / reviews sites or like in wordpress, articles and their responses would be stored separately because of the same reasons. Articles would have relations to site authors, related articles, formatting, categories, etc. Responses would be threaded, possibly unformatted, etc.
Use multiple tables here, you said it yourself: there's another wrinkle: Each topic has its own respons*es* too
Multiple of anything usually requires another table.
I'd see it like this:
[TOPICS] [ topicID, user_id, title, content, type[suggestion, question, problem] ]
[SUGGESTION] [ suggID <fields here> *topicID ]
Note topicID as a foreign key in [SUGGESTION]
For example, I have "news" and "articles" tables and I want comment these entries using "comments" table.
What the best way to make relationship and comment different entries?
I assume both news and articles to comments are one-to-many . And I also assume the same comment cannot associate to a new and an article at the same time.
One of the way is that:
Advantages is that the Schema is normalized ,data integrity is properly maintained and it allows for schema evolution. For example , there may be possibility to add the comment for another similar kind of entity in the future (eg Allow adding comments for the blog table).
Disadvantages is that it requires join extra table when query the comments for a news or articles