I have an ERP application with about 50 small lookup tables containing non-transactional data. Examples are ItemTypes, SalesOrderStatuses etc. There are so many different types and categories and statuses and with every new module new lookup tables are being added. I have a service to provide List objects out of these tables. These tables usually contain only two columns, (Id and Description). They have only a couple of rows, 8 - 10 rows at max.
I am thinking about putting all of them in one table with ID, Description and LookupTypeID. With this one table I will be able to get rid of 50 tables. Is it good idea? Bad Idea? Very bad idea?
Are there any standards/best-practices for managing small lookup tables?
Among some professionals, the single common lookup table is a design error you should avoid. At the very least, it will slow down performance. The reason is that you will have to have a compound primary key for the common table, and lookups via a compound key will take longer than lookups via a simple key.
According to Anith Sen, this is the first of five design errors you should avoid. See this article: Five Simple Design Errors
Merging lookup tables is a bad idea if you care about integrity of your data (and you should!):
It would allow "client" tables to reference the data they were not meant to reference. E.g. the DBMS will not protect you from referencing SalesOrderStatuses where only ItemTypes should be allowed - they are now in the same table and you cannot (easily) separate the corresponding FKs.
It would force all lookup data to share the same columns and types.
Unless you have a performance problems due to excessive JOINs, I recommend you stay with your current design.
If you do, then you could consider using natural instead of surrogate keys in the lookup tables. This way, the natural keys gets "propagated" through foreign keys to the "client" tables, resulting in less need for JOINing, at the price of increased storage space. For example, instead of having ItemTypes {Id PK, Description AK}, only have ItemTypes {Description PK}, and you no longer have to JOIN with ItemTypes just to get the Description - it was automatically propagated down the FK.
You can store them in a text search (ie nosql) database like Lucene. They are ridiculously fast.
I have implemented this to great effect. Note though that there is some initial setup to overcome, but not much. Lucene queries on ids are a snap to write.
The "one big lookup table" approach has the problem of allowing for silly values -- for example "color: yellow" for trucks in the inventory when you only have cars with "color: yellow". One Big Lookup Table: Just Say No.
Off-hand, I would go with the natural keys for the lookup tables unless you would have cases like "the 2012 model CX300R was red but the 2010-2011 models CX300R were blue (and model ID also denotes color)".
Traditionally if you ask a DBA they will say you should have separate tables. If you asked a programmer they would say using the single table is easier. (Makes making a Edit Status webpage very easy you just make one webpage and pass it a different LookupTypeID instead of lots of similar pages)
However now with ORM the SQL and Code to access different status tables is not really any extra effort.
I have used both method and both work fine. I must admit using a single status table is easiest. I have done this for small apps and also enterprise apps and have noticed no performance impacts.
Finally the other field I normally like to add on these generic status tables is a OrderBy field so you can sort the status in your UI by something other than the description if needed.
Sounds like a good idea to me. You can have the ID and LookupTypeID as a multi-attribute primary key. You just need to know what all of the different LookupTypeIDs represent and you should be good as gold.
EDIT: As for the standards/best-practices, I honestly don't have an answer for you. I've only had one semester of SQL/database design so I haven't been all too exposed to the matter.
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.
I have a SQL Server 2008 database with a snowflake-style schema, so lots of different lookup tables, like Language, Countries, States, Status, etc. All these lookup table have almost identical structures: Two columns, Code and Decode. My project manager would like all of these different tables to be one BIG table, so I would need another column, say CodeCategory, and my primary key columns for this big table would be CodeCategory and Code. The problem is that for any of the tables that have the actual code (say Language Code), I cannot establish a foreign key relationship into this big decode table, as the CodeCategory would not be in the fact table, just the code. And codes by themselves will not be unique (they will be within a CodeCategory), so I cannot make an FK from just the fact table code field into the Big lookup table Code field.
So am I missing something, or is this impossible to do and still be able to do FKs in the related tables? I wish I could do this: have a FK where one of the columns I was matching to in the lookup table would match to a string constant. Like this (I know this is impossible but it gives you an idea what I want to do):
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Users] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_User_AppCodes]
FOREIGN KEY('Language', [LanguageCode])
REFERENCES [dbo].[AppCodes] ([AppCodeCategory], [AppCode])
The above does not work, but if it did I would have the FK I need. Where I have the string 'Language', is there any way in T-SQL to substitute the table name from code instead?
I absolutely need the FKs so, if nothing like this is possible, then I will have to stick with my may little lookup tables. any assistance would be appreciated.
Brian
It is not impossible to accomplish this, but it is impossible to accomplish this and not hurt the system on several levels.
While a single lookup table (as has been pointed out already) is a truly horrible idea, I will say that this pattern does not require a single field PK or that it be auto-generated. It requires a composite PK comprised of ([AppCodeCategory], [AppCode]) and then BOTH fields need to be present in the fact table that would have a composite FK of both fields back to the PK. Again, this is not an endorsement of this particular end-goal, just a technical note that it is possible to have composite PKs and FKs in other, more appropriate scenarios.
The main problem with this type of approach to constants is that each constant is truly its own thing: Languages, Countries, States, Statii, etc are all completely separate entities. While the structure of them in the database is the same (as of today), the data within that structure does not represent the same things. You would be locked into a model that either disallows from adding additional lookup fields later (such as ISO codes for Language and Country but not the others, or something related to States that is not applicable to the others), or would require adding NULLable fields with no way to know which Category/ies they applied to (have fun debugging issues related to that and/or explaining to the new person -- who has been there for 2 days and is tasked with writing a new report -- that the 3 digit ISO Country Code does not apply to the "Deleted" status).
This approach also requires that you maintain an arbitrary "Category" field in all related tables. And that is per lookup. So if you have CountryCode, LanguageCode, and StateCode in the fact table, each of those FKs gets a matching CategoryID field, so now that is 6 fields instead of 3. Even if you were able to use TINYINT for CategoryID, if your fact table has even 200 million rows, then those three extra 1 byte fields now take up 600 MB, which adversely affects performance. And let's not forget that backups will take longer and take up more space, but disk is cheap, right? Oh, and if backups take longer, then restores also take longer, right? Oh, but the table has closer to 1 billion rows? Even better ;-).
While this approach looks maybe "cleaner" or "easier" now, it is actually more costly in the long run, especially in terms of wasted developer time, as you (and/or others) in the future try to work around issues related to this poor design choice.
Has anyone even asked your project manager what the intended benefit of this is? It is a reasonable question if you are going to spend some amount of hours making changes to the system that there be a stated benefit for that time spent. It certainly does not make interacting with the data any easier, and in fact will make it harder, especially if you choose a string for the "Category" instead of a TINYINT or maybe SMALLINT.
If your PM still presses for this change, then it should be required, as part of that project, to also change any enums in the app code accordingly so that they match what is in the database. Since the database is having its values munged together, you can accomplish that in C# (assuming your app code is in C#, if not then translate to whatever is appropriate) by setting the enum values explicitly with a pattern of the first X digits are the "category" and the remaining Y digits are the "value". For example:
Assume the "Country" category == 1 and the "Language" catagory == 2, you could do:
enum AppCodes
{
// Countries
United States = 1000001,
Canada = 1000002,
Somewhere Else = 1000003,
// Languages
EnglishUS = 2000001,
EnglishUK = 2000002,
French = 2000003
};
Absurd? Completely. But also analogous to the request of merging all lookup tables into a single table. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Is this being suggested so you can minimise the number of admin screens you need for CRUD operations on your standing data? I've been here before and decided it was better/safer/easier to build a generic screen which used metadata to decide what table to extract from/write to. It was a bit more work to build but kept the database schema 'correct'.
All the standing data tables had the same basic structure, they were mainly for dropdown population with occasional additional fields for business rule purposes.
I'm developing an Asset management application.
Looking through the excel tracker that was being used previously, I was able to identify some attributes that were common to all categories of assets (basically non-technical attributes such as Purchase Order No. , Warranty Info etc.) for which I think I will make a separate table.
But when storing technical-attributes, there are many categories of assets for which I need only one or two additional attributes to be stored.
Should a make a single table for all these attributes and store NULLs wherever applicable or should I make a separate table each category containing just the asset ID and the addition columns? Which approach is better/more pragmatic?
Is cluttering the database with too many tables ok? I have around 10 such categories.
There are 3 known approaches to this:
Single table
In this model, you have a single table with all known columns, and allow them to be null for types that don't have that attribute. This gives you a simple database, and fairly simple SQL, but doesn't allow support for common features that relational databases give you, like insisting on non-null columns for a data type, or creating unique indices where that makes sense.
It also tends to lead to messy SQL, with developers forgetting over time what columns mean, so you could get a column being used for multiple purposes.
It does make it easy to join to other tables - so if you have an asset and a purchase related to that asset, the "purchase" table joins to the "asset" table on "assetID".
Table per subtype
In this case, you build a table for each subtype, and enforce the data characteristics of that subtype with not null, unique etc.
This creates a clearer separation of subtypes, and is less likely to degrade into big ball of mud, but makes joins very hard - to join from "purchase" to "asset", you have to know which table holds that particular asset.
Common table for common fields, table per subtype
In this model, you have a single table for the fields that are common between subtypes - you say you've identified this already - and have further tables for each subtype to store the unique attributes.
This solves the joining problem between "asset" and "purchase", keeps the data pretty self-describing.
It does mean client logic needs to implement the "join asset_master to asset_subtype" issue.
I prefer option 3 - it's the best trade-off between maintainability and managability.
Databases should be able to handle lots of columns and lots of tables, so both approaches should work from that perspective.
If you don't have any additional requirements, I'd use the single table approach. It is the easiest, and the only thing you are loosing is the ability to put not null constraints on the fields that exist only form some categories
Imagine a meta database with a high degree of normalization. It would blow up this input field if I would attempt to describe it here. But imagine, every relationship through the entire database, through all tables, go through one single table called link. It has got these fields: master_class_id, master_attr_id, master_obj_id, class_id2, obj_id2. This table can easily represent all kinds of relationships: 1:1, 1:n, m:n, self:self.
I see the problem that this table is going to get HUUUUGE. Is that bad practice?
That is wrong on two accounts:
It'll be a tremendous bottleneck for all your queries and it'll kill any chance of throughput.
It reeks of bad design: you should be able to describe things more concisely and closer to reality. If this is really the best way to store the data you can consider partitioning or even another paradigm instead of the relational
In a word, yes, this is a bad idea
Without going into too many details, I would offer the following:
for a meta database, the link table should be split by (high level) entity : that is, you should have a separate link table for each entity
another link table is required for the between-entities links
Normally the high-level entities are fairly easy to identify, like Customer.
It is usually bad practice but not because the table is huge. The problem is that you are mixing unrelated data in one table.
The reason to keep the links in separate tables, is because you won't need to use them together.
It is a common mistake that is also done with data itself: You should not mix two sets of data in one table only because the fields are similar if the data itself is unrelated.
Relational databases don't actually fit for this model.
It's possible to implement it but it will be quite slow. The main drawback is that you won't be able to index the links efficiently.
However, this design can be useful in two cases:
This only stores the metadata: declared relationships between the entities. The actual data are stored in the plain relational tables, so this links are only used to show the structure but not in the actual queries.
This stores some structures which are complex but contain few data, so that the ease of development overweights the performance drawbacks.
This design can be seen in several ORMs (one of which I even developed).
I don't see the purpose of this type of table anyway. If you have table A that is one-to-many to table B then A is going to still have a PK and B will still have a PK. A would normally contain a FK to B.
So in the Master_Table you will have to store A PK, B FK which is just a duplicate of what is already there. The only thing you will 'lose' is the FK in table A but you just migrated it into a giant table that is hard to deal with by the database, the dba, and anyone coding using the db.
Those table appear in Access most frequently and show up on the DailyWTF because they are insanely hard to read and understand.
Oh! And a main problem is that to make the table ubiquitous you will have to make generic columns which will probably end up destroying data integrity.
I have a table that has a bunch of fields. The fields can be broken into logical groups - like a job's project manager info. The groupings themselves aren't really entity candidates as they don't and shouldn't have their own PKs.
For now, to group them, the fields have prefixes (PmFirstName for example) but I'm considering breaking them out into multiple tables with 1:1 relations on the main table.
Is there anything I should watch out for when I do this? Is this just a poor choice?
I can see that maybe my queries will get more complicated with all the extra joins but that can be mitigated with views right? If we're talking about a table with less than 100k records is this going to have a noticeable effect on performance?
Edit: I'll justify the non-entity candidate thoughts a little further. This information is entered by our user base. They don't know/care about each other. So its possible that the same user will submit the same "projectManager name" or whatever which, at this point, wouldn't be violating any constraint. Its for us to determine later on down the pipeline if we wanna correlate entries from separate users. If I were to give these things their own key they would grow at the same rate the main table grows - since they are essentially part of the same entity. At no pt is a user picking from a list of available "project managers".
So, given the above, I don't think they are entities. But maybe not - if you have further thoughts please post.
I don't usually use 1 to 1 relations unless there is a specific performance reason for it. For example storing an infrequently used large text or BLOB type field in a separate table.
I would suspect that there is something else going on here though. In the example you give - PmFirstName - it seems like maybe there should be a single pm_id relating to a "ProjectManagers" or "Employees" table. Are you sure none of those groupings are really entity candidates?
To me, they smell unless for some rows or queries you won't be interested in the extra columns. e.g. if for a large portion of your queries you are not selecting the PmFirstName columns, or if for a large subset of rows those columns are NULL.
I like the smells tag.
I use 1 to 1 relationships for inheritance-like constructs.
For example, all bonds have some basic information like CUSIP, Coupon, DatedDate, and MaturityDate. This all goes in the main table.
Now each type of bond (Treasury, Corporate, Muni, Agency, etc.) also has its own set of columns unique to it.
In the past we would just have one incredibly wide table with all that information. Now we break out the type-specific info into separate tables, which gives us much better performance.
For now, to group them, the fields have prefixes (PmFirstName for example) but I'm considering breaking them out into multiple tables with 1:1 relations on the main table.
Create a person table, every database needs this. Then in your project table have a column called PMKey which points to the person table.
Why do you feel that the group of fields are not an entity candidates? If they are not then why try to identify them with a prefix?
Either drop the prefixes or extract them into their own table.
It is valuable splitting them up into separate tables if they are separate logical entities that could be used elsewhere.
So a "Project Manager" could be 1:1 with all the projects currently, but it makes sense that later you might want to be able to have a Project Manager have more than one project.
So having the extra table is good.
If you have a PrimaryFirstName,PrimaryLastName,PrimaryPhone, SecondaryFirstName,SecondaryLastName,SEcondaryPhone
You could just have a "Person" table with FirstName, LastName, Phone
Then your original Table only needs "PrimaryId" and "SecondaryId" columns to replace the 6 columns you previously had.
Also, using SQL you can split up filegroups and tables across physical locations.
So you could have a POST table, and a COMMENT Table, that have a 1:1 relationship, but the COMMENT table is located on a different filegroup, and on a different physical drive with more memory.
1:1 does not always smell. Unless it has no purpose.