I want to make a database that can store any king of objects and for each classes of objects different features.
Giving some of the questions i asked on different forums the solution is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-attribute-value_model or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xml with some kind of validation before storage.
Can you please give me an alternative to the ones above or some advantages or examples that would help decide which of the two methods is the best one in my case?
Thanks
UPDATE 1 :
Is your db read or write intensive?
will be both -> auction engine
Will you ever conceivably move off SQL Server and onto another platform?
I won't move it, I will use a WCF Service to expose functionality to mobile devices.
How do you plan to surface your data to the application?
Entity Framework for DAL and WCF Service Layer for Bussiness
Will people connect to your data through means other than those you control?
No
While #marc_s is correct in his cautions, there unarguably are situations where the relational model is just not flexible enough. For quite a number of years now, I've been working with a database that is straightforwardly relational for the largest part, but has a small EAV part. This is because users can invent new properties any time for observation purposes in trials.
Admittedly, it is awkward wrt querying and reporting, to name a few, but no other strategy would suffice here. We use stored procedures with T-Sql's pivot to offer flattened data structures for reporting and grids with dynamic columns for display. Once the infrastructure stands it's pretty comfortable altogether.
We never considered using XML data because it wasn't there yet and, apart from its common limitations, it has some drawbacks in our context:
The EAV data is queried heavily. A development team needs more than standard sql knowledge because of the special syntax. Indexing is possible but "there is a cost associated with maintaining the index during data modification" (as per MSDN).
The XML datatype is far less accessible than regular tables and fields when it comes to data processing and reporting.
Hardly ever do users fetch all attribute values of an entity, but the whole XML would have to be crunched anyway.
And, not unimportant: XML datatype is not (yet) supported by Entity Framework.
So, to conclude, I would go for a design that is relational as much as possible but EAV where necessary. Auction items could have a number of fixed fields and EAV's for the flexible data.
I will use my answer from another question:
EAV:
Storage. If your value will be used often for different products, e.g. clothes where attribute "size" and values of sizes will be repeated often, your attribute/values tables will be smaller. Meanwhile, if values will be rather unique that repeatable (e.g. values for attribute "page count" for books), you will get a big enough table with values, where every value will be linked to one product.
Speed. This scheme is not weakest part of project, because here data will be changed rarely. And remember that you always can denormalize database scheme to prepare DW-like solution. You can use caching if database part will be slow too.
Elasticity This is the strongest part of solution. You can easily add/remove attributes and values and ever to move values from one attribute to another!
XML storage is more like NoSQL: you will abdicate database functionality and you wisely prepare your solution to:
Do not lose data integrity.
Do not rewrite all database functionality in application (it is senseless)
I think there is way too much context missing for anyone to add any kind of valid comment to the discussion.
Is your db read or write intensive?
Will you ever conceivably move off SQL Server and onto another platform?
How do you plan to surface your data to the application?
Will people connect to your data through means other than those you control?
First do not go either route unless the structure truly cannot be known in advance. Using EAV or XML because you don't want to actually define the requirements will result in an unmaintainable mess and a badly performing mess at that. Usually at least 90+% (a conservative estimate based on my own experience) of the fields can be known in advance and should be in ordinary relational tables. Only use special techiniques for structures that can't be known in advance. I can't stress this strongly enough. EAV tables look simple but are actually very hard to query especially for complex reporting queries. Sure it is easy to get data into them, but very very difficult to get the data back out.
If you truly need to go the EAV route, consider using a nosql database for that part of the application and a relational database for the rest. Nosql databases simply handle EAV better.
Related
We have to redesign a legacy POI database from MySQL to PostgreSQL. Currently all entities have 80-120+ attributes that represent individual properties.
We have been asked to consider flexibility as well as good design approach for the new database. However new design should allow:
n no. of attributes/properties for any entity i.e. no of attributes for any entity are not fixed and may change on regular basis.
allow content admins to add new properties to existing entities on the fly using through admin interfaces rather than making changes in db schema all the time.
There are quite a few discussions about performance issues of EAV but if we don't go with a hybrid-EAV we end up:
having lot of empty columns (we still go and add new columns even if 99% of the data does not have those properties)
spend more time maintaining database esp. when attributes keep changing.
no way of allowing content admins to add new properties to existing entities
Anyway here's what we are thinking about the new design (basic ERD included):
Have separate tables for each entity containing some basic info that is exclusive e.g. id,name,address,contact,created,etc etc.
Have 2 tables attribute type and attribute to store properties information.
Link each entity to an attribute using a many-to-many relation.
Store addresses in different table and link to entities using foreign key.
We think this will allow us to be more flexible when adding,removing or updating on properties.
This design, however, will result in increased number of joins when fetching data e.g.to display all "attributes" for a given stadium we might have a query with 20+ joins to fetch all related attributes in a single row.
What are your thoughts on this design, and what would be your advice to improve it.
Thank you for reading.
I'm maintaining a 10 year old system that has a central EAV model with 10M+ entities, 500M+ values and hundreds of attributes. Some design considerations from my experience:
If you have any business logic that applies to a specific attribute it's worth having that attribute as an explicit column. The EAV attributes should really be stuff that is generic, the application shouldn't distinguish attribute A from attribute B. If you find a literal reference to an EAV attribute in the code, odds are that it should be an explicit column.
Having significant amounts of empty columns isn't a big technical issue. It does need good coding and documentation practices to compartmentalize different concerns that end up in one table:
Have conventions and rules that let you know which part of your application reads and modifies which part of the data.
Use views to ease poking around the database with debugging tools.
Create and maintain test data generators so you can easily create schema conforming dummy data for the parts of the model that you are not currently interested in.
Use rigorous database versioning. The only way to make schema changes should be via a tool that keeps track of and applies change scripts. Postgresql has transactional DDL, that is one killer feature for automating schema changes.
Postgresql doesn't really like skinny tables. Each attribute value results in 32 bytes of data storage overhead in addition to the extra work of traversing all the rows to pull the data together. If you mostly read and write the attributes as a batch, consider serializing the data into the row in some way. attr_ids int[], attr_values text[] is one option, hstore is another, or something client side, like json or protobuf, if you don't need to touch anything specific on the database side.
Don't go out of your way to put everything into one single entity table. If they don't share any attributes in a sensible way, use multiple instantitions of the specific EAV pattern you use. But do try to use the same pattern and share any accessor code between the different instatiations. You can always parametrise the code on the entity name.
Always keep in mind that code is data and data is code. You need to find the correct balance between pushing decisions into the meta-model and expressing them as code. If you make the meta-model do too much, modifying it will need the same kind of ability to understand the system, versioning tools, QA procedures, staging as your code, but it will have none of the tools. In essence you will be doing programming in a very awkward non-standard language. On the other hand, if you leave too much in the code, every trivial change will need a new version of your software. People tend to err on the side of making the meta-model too complex. Building developer tools for meta-models is hard and tedious work and has limited benefit. On the other hand, making the release process cheaper by automating everything that happens from commit to deploy has many side benefits.
EAV can be useful for some scenarios. But it is a little like "the dark side". Powerful, flexible and very seducing it is. But it's something of an easy way out. An easy way out of doing proper analysis and design.
I think "entity" is a bit over the top too general. You seem to have some idea of what should be connected to that entity, like address and contact. What if you decide to have "Books" in the model. Would they also have adresses and contacts? I think you should try to find the right generalizations and keep the EAV parts of the model to a minium. Whenever you find yourself wanting to show a certain subset of the attributes, or test for existance of the value, or determining behaviour based on the value you should really have it modelled as a columns.
You will not get a better opportunity to design this system than now. The requirements are known since the previous version, and also what worked and what didn't. (Just don't fall victim to the Second System Effect)
One good implementation of EAV can be found in magento, a cms for ecommerce. There is a lot of bad talk about EAV those days, but I challenge anyone to come up with another solution than EAV for dealing with infinite product attributes.
Sure you can go about enumerating all the columns you would need for every product in the world, but that would take you a lot of time and you would inevitably forget product attributes in the way.
So the bottom line is : use EAV for infinite stuff but don't rely on EAV for all the database's tables. Hence an hybrid EAV and relational db, when done right, is a powerful tool that could not be acomplished by only using fixed columns.
Basically EAV is trying to implement a database within a database, and it leads to madness. The queries to pull data become overly complex, and your data has no stable, specific model to keep it in some kind of order.
I've written EAV systems for limited applications, but as a generic solution it's usually a bad idea.
I was wondering the trade-offs for using databases and what the other options were? Also, what problems are not well suited for databases?
I'm concerned with Relational Databases.
The concept of database is very broad. I will make some simplifications in what I present here.
For some tasks, the most common database is the relational database. It's a database based on the relational model. The relational model assumes that you describe your data in rows, belonging to tables where each table has a given and fixed number of columns. You submit data on a "per row" basis, meaning that you have to provide a row in a single shot containing the data relative to all columns of your table. Every submitted row normally gets an identifier which is unique at the table level, sometimes at the database level. You can create relationships between entities in the relational database, for example by saying that a given cell in your table must refer to another table's row, so to preserve the so called "referential integrity".
This model works fine, but it's not the only one out there. In some cases, data are better organized as a tree. The filesystem is a hierarchical database. starts at a root, and everything goes under this root, in a tree like structure. Another model is the key/value pair. Sleepycat BDB is basically a store of key/value entities.
LDAP is another database which has two advantages: stores rather generic data, it's distributed by design, and it's optimized for reading.
Graph databases and triplestores allow you to store a graph and perform isomorphism search. This is typically needed if you have a very generic dataset that can encompass a broad level of description of your entities, so broad that is basically unknown. This is in clear opposition to the relational model, where you create your tables with a very precise set of columns, and you know what each column is going to contain.
Some relational column-based databases exist as well. Instead of submitting data by row, you submit them by whole column.
So, to answer your question: a database is a method to store data. Technically, even a text file is a database, although not a particularly nice one. The choice of the model behind your database is mostly relative to what is the typical needs of your application.
Setting the answer as CW as I am probably saying something strictly not correct. Feel free to edit.
This is a rather broad question, but databases are well suited for managing relational data. Alternatives would almost always imply to design your own data storage and retrieval engine, which for most standard/small applications is not worth the effort.
A typical scenario that is not well suited for a database is the storage of large amounts of data which are organized as a relatively small amount of logical files, in this case a simple filesystem-like system can be enough.
Don't forget to take a look at NOSQL databases. It's pretty new technology and well suited for stuff that doesn't fit/scale in a relational database.
Use a database if you have data to store and query.
Technically, most things are suited for databases. Computers are made to process data and databases are made to store them.
The only thing to consider is cost. Cost of deployment, cost of maintenance, time investment, but it will usually be worth it.
If you only need to store very simple data, flat files would be an alternative (text files).
Note: you used the generic term 'database', but there are many many different types and implementations of these.
For search applications, full-text search engines (some of which are integrated to traditional DBMSes, but some of which are not), can be a good alternative, allowing both more features (various linguistic awareness, ability to have semi-structured data, ranking...) as well as better performance.
Also, I've seen applications where configuration data is stored in the database, and while this makes sense in some cases, using plain text files (or YAML, XML and such) and loading the underlying objects during initialization, may be preferable, due to the self-contained nature of such alternative, and to the ease of modifying and replicating such files.
A flat log file, can be a good alternative to logging to DBMS, depending on usage of course.
This said, in the last 10 years or so, the DBMS Systems, in general, have added many features, to help them handle different forms of data and different search capabilities (ex: FullText search a fore mentioned, XML, Smart storage/handling of BLOBs, powerful user-defined functions, etc.) which render them more versatile, and hence a fairly ubiquitous service. Their strength remain mainly with relational data however.
I am building a system that allows front-end users to define their own business objects. Defining a business object involves creating data fields for that business object and then relating it to other business objects in the system - fairly straight forward stuff. My question is, what is the most efficient storage strategy?
The requirements are:
Must support business objects with potentially 100+ fields (of all common data types)
The system will eventually support hundreds of thousands of business object instances
Business objects sometimes display data and aggregates from their relationships with other business objects
Users must be able to search for business objects by their data fields (and fields from related business objects)
The two possible solutions I can envisage are:
Have a dynamic schema such that when a new business object type is created a new table is created for storing instances of that object. The object's fields become columns in the storage table.
Have a fixed schema where instance data fields are stored as rows in basically a big long table.
I can see pros and cons to both approaches:
the dynamic schema allows me to index search columns
the dynamic tables are potentially limited in width by the max column size
dynamic schemas rule out / cause issues with replication
the static schema means less or even no dynamic sql generation
my guess is the static schema may perform like a dog when it comes to searching across 100,000+ objects
So what is the best soution? Is there another approach I haven't thought of?
Edit: The requirement I have been given is to build a generic system capable of supporting front-end user defined business objects. There will of course be restrictions on how these objects can be constructed and related, but the requirement itself is not up for negotiation.
My client is a service provider and requires a degree of flexibility in servicing their own clients, hence the need to create business objects.
I think your problem matches very well to a graph database like Neo4j, as it's built for the requested kind of flexibility from the beginning. It stores data as nodes and relationships/edges, and both nodes and relationships can hold arbitrary properties (in a key/value fashion). One important difference to a RDBMS is that a graph database won't need to lookup the relationships in a big long table (like in your fixed schema solution), so there should be a significant performance gain there. You can find out about language bindings for Neo4j in the wiki and read what others say about it in this stackoverflow thread. Disclaimer: I'm part of the Neo4j team.
Without much understanding of your situation...
Instead of writing a general purpose one-size-fits-all business objects system (which is the holy grail for Oracle, Microsoft, SAS, etc.), why not do it the typical way, where the requirements are gathered, and a developer designs and implements the users' business objects in an effective manner?
If your users are typical, they will create a monster, which will end up running slow, and they will hate it. Most users will view the data as an Excel sheet, and not understand relationships like: parent/child. As a result there will be some crazy objects built, and impossible-to-solve reports. You'll be forced to create scripts to manually convert many old objects to better and properly defined ones, etc...
Your requirements sound a little bit like an associative database with a front end to compose and edit entities.
I agree with KM above, unless you have a very compelling reason not to, you would be better off using a traditional approach. There are a lot of development tools and practices that allow you to build a robust and scalable system. Otherwise you will have to implement much of this yourself.
I don't know the best way to do this, because it sounds like something that has already been implemented by others. If I were asked to implement this feature, I would recommend buying a wheel instead of reinventing it.
Perhaps there are reasons you have to invent your own? If so, then you should add those reasons to the requirements you listed.
If you absolutely must be this generic, I still recommend buying a system that has been architected for this requirement. Not just the storage requirements, which are the least of the problems your customer will have; but also: how do you keep the customer from screwing up totally when given this much freedom. Some of the commercial systems already meet this challenge without going out of business because of customers messing up.
If you still need to do this on your own, then I suggest that your requirements (or perhaps those of another vendor?) must include: allow the customer to get it right, and help keep the customer from getting it wrong. You'll need some sort of UI to allow the customer to define these business objects, and the UI should validate the model that the customer builds.
I recommend a UI that works at a conceptual level. As an example, see NORMA, a Visual Studio add-in for Object-Role Modeling (the "other" ORM). Consider it as a example only, if your end users cannot afford a Visual Studio Standard license. Otherwise, you'll find that it is extensible, already produces many types of artifact (from SQL in various dialects to code), and will validate the model to see that it makes sense. End users would also be able to enter sample data that they believe should be valid, and the system will validate the data against the model.
If your customers are producing sensible (if dynamic) business objects, then the question of storage will be much simpler.
Have you thought about an XML based solution? The requirements suggested to me "Build a system that allows users to dynamically generate an XML Schema and work with XML documents based on that schema." I don't know enough about storing and querying XML documents to comment on your original question.
Another possibility might be to leverage NHibernate's ability to generate database schemas. If you can dynamically generate business objects, then you can generate XML mappings or Fluent mappings and use that to generate a normalized database schema.
Every user that I have ever talked to has always wanted "everything" in their project. Part of the job of gathering requirements is to guide the user, not just write down everything they say.
Your only hope is to build several template objects, that they can add properties to, you could code your application to handle each type of these objects, but allow the user to still slightly modify each as necessary.
You need to inform the user upfront of the major flaws this type of design has. This will help you in the end, when it runs slow, or if they screw up and need help fixing something. I'd put this in writing.
How many possible objects would they really need? Perhaps you could set these up using your system first. I have developed several very customizable systems over the years and when the user is sitting at an empty screen, it is like a deer in the headlights.
In any event, good luck.
I've heard a lot about couchdb lately, and am confused about what it offers.
It's hard to explain all the differences in strict advantage/disadvantage form.
I would suggest playing with CouchDB a little yourself. The first thing you'll notice is that the learning curve during initial usage is totally inverted from RDBMS.
With RDBMS you spend a lot of up front time modeling your real world data to get it in to the Database. Once you've dealt with the modeling you can do all kinds of queries.
With CouchDB you just get all your data in JSON and stored in the DB in, literally, minutes. You don't need to do any normalization or anything like that, and the transport is HTTP so you have plenty of client options.
Then you'll notice a big learning curve when writing map functions and learning how the key collation works and the queries against the views you write. Once you learn them, you'll start to see how views allow you to normalize the indexes while leaving the data un-normalized and "natural".
CouchDB is a document-oriented database.
Wikipedia:
As opposed to Relational Databases, document-based databases do not store data in tables with uniform sized fields for each record. Instead, each record is stored as a document that has certain characteristics. Any number of fields of any length can be added to a document. Fields can also contain multiple pieces of data.
Advantages:
You don't waste space by leaving empty fields in documents (because they're not necessarily needed)
By providing a simple frontend for editing it is possible to quickly set up an application for maintaining data.
Fast and agile schema updates/changes
Map Reduce queries in a turing complete language of your choice. (no more sql)
Flexible Schema designs
Freeform Object Storage
Really really easy replication
Really Really easy Load-Balancing (soon)
Take a look here.
I think what better answers you is:
Just as CouchDB is not always the
right tool for the job, RDBMS's are
also not always the right answer.
CouchDB is a disk hog because it doesn't update documents -- it creates a new revision each time you update so the not-wasting-space-part because you don't have empty fields is trumped by the revisions.
I know that the title might sound a little contradictory, but what I'm asking is with regards to ORM frameworks (SQLAlchemy in this case, but I suppose this would apply to any of them) that allow you to define your schema within your application.
Is it better to change the database schema directly and then update the column types in your program manually, or does it make more sense to define the tables in your application and then use the ORM framework's table generation functions to make the schema and then build the tables on the database side for you?
Bear in mind that applications and databases tend to live in a M:M relationship in any but the most trivial cases. If your application is at all likely to have interfaces to other systems, reports, data extracts or loads, or data migrated onto or off it from another system then the database has more than one stakeholder.
Be nice to the other stakeholders in your application. Take the time and get the schema right and put some thought into data quality in the design of your application. Keep an eye on anyone else using the application and make sure you don't break bits of the schema that they depend on without telling them. This means that the database has a life of its own to a greater or lesser extent. The more integration, the more independent the database.
Of course, if nobody else uses or cares about the data, feel free to ignore my advice.
My personal belief is that you should design the database on its own merits. The database is the best place to handle things modeling your Domain data. The database is also the biggest source of slow down in applications and letting your ORM design your database seems like a bad idea to me. :)
Of course, I've only got a couple of big projects behind me. I'm still learning daily. :)
The best way to define your database schema is to start with modeling your application domain (domain driven design anyone?) and seeing what tables take shape based on the domain objects you define.
I think this is the best way because really the database is simply a place to persist information from the application, it should never lead the design. It's not the only place to persist information as well. We have users that want to work from flat files or the database for instance. They could also use XML files. So by starting with your domain objects and then generating tables (or flat file or XML schema or whatever) from there will lead to a much better design in the end.
While this may depend on you using an object-oriented language, using an ORM tool like Hibernate/NHibernate, SubSonic, etc. can really make this transition easy for you up to, and including generating the database creation scripts.
In reference to performance, performance should be one of the last things you look at in an application, it should never drive the design. After you get a good schema up and running based on your domain you can always make tweaks to improve its performance.
Alot depends on your skill level with the specific database product that you're going to use. Think of it as the difference between a "manual" and "automatic" transmission car. ORMs provide you with that "automatic" transmission, just start designing your classes, and let the ORM worry about getting it stored into the database somehow.
Sounds good. The problem with most ORMs is that in their quest to be PI "persistence ignorant", they often don't take advantage of specific database features that can provide elegant solutions for a given task. Notice, I didn't say ALL ORMs, just most.
My take is to design the conceptual data model first yourself. Then you can go in either direction, up towards the application space, or down towards the physical database. But remember, only YOU know if it's more advantageous to use a view instead of a table, should you normalize or de-normalize a table, what non-clustered index(es) make sense with this table, is a natural or surrogate key more appropriate for this table, etc... Of course, if you feel that these questions are beyond your grasp, then let the ORM help you out.
One more thing, you really need to seperate the application design from the database design. They are almost never the same. How important is that data? Could another application be designed to use that data? It's a lot easier to refactor an application than it is to refactor a database with a billion rows of data spread across thousands of tables.
Well, if you can get away with it, doing it in the application is probably the best way. Since it's a perfect example of the DRY principle.
Having said that however, getting away with it is always going to be hard to pull off since you're practically choosing to give up most database specific optimizations. (more so, with querying, but it still applies to schemas (indexes, etc)).
You'll probably end up changing the schema by hand anyway, and then you'll be stuck with a brittle database schema that's going to be the source of your worst nightmares :)
My 2 Cents
Design each based on their own requirements as much as possible. Trying to keep them in too rigid sync is a good illustration of increased coupling/decreased cohesion.
Come to think of it, ORMs can easily be used to spread coupling (even though it can be avoided to some degree).