I have been asked to add a new address book table to our database (SQL Server 2012).
To simplify the related part of the database, there are three tables each linked to each other in a one to many fashion: Company (has many) Products (has many) Projects and the idea is that one or many addresses will be able to exist at any one of these levels. The thinking is that in the front-end system, a user will be able to view and select specific addresses for the project they specify and more generic addresses relating to its parent product and company.
The issue now if how best to model this in the database.
I have thought of two possible ideas so far so wonder if anyone has had a similar type of relationship to model themselves and how they implemented it?
Idea one:
The new address table will additionally contain three fields: companyID, productID and projectID. These fields will be related to the relevant tables and be nullable to represent company and product level addresses. e.g. companyID 2, productID 1, projectID NULL is a product level address.
My issue with this is that I am storing the relationship information in the table so if a project is ever changed to be related to a different product, the data in this table will be incorrect. I could potentially NULL all but the level I am interested in but this will make getting parent addresses a little harder to get
Idea two:
On the address table have a typeID and a genericID. genericID could contain the IDs from the Company, Product and Project tables with the typeID determining which table it came from. I am a little stuck how to set up the necessary constraints to do this though and wonder if this is going to get tricky to deal with in the future
Many thanks,
I will suggest using Idea one and preventing Idea two.
Second Idea is called Polymorphic Association anti pattern
Objective: Reference Multiple Parents
Resulting side effect: Using dual-purpose foreign key will violating first normal form (atomic issue), loosing referential integrity
Solution: Simplify the Relationship
The simplification of the relationship could be obtained in two ways:
Having multiple null-able forging keys (idea number 1): That will be
simple and applicable if the tables(product, project,...) that using
the relation are limited. (think about when they grow up to more)
Another more generic solution will be using inheritance. Defining a
new entity as the base table for (product, project,...) to satisfy
Addressable. May naming it organization-unit be more rational. Primary key of this organization_unit table will be the primary key of (product, project,...). Other collections like Address, Image, Contract ... tables will have a relation to this base table.
It sounds like you could use Junction tables http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junction_table.
They will give you the flexibility you need to maintain your foreign key restraints, as well as share addresses between levels or entities if that is desired.
One for Company_Address, Product_Address, and Project_Address
Inventory Items :
Paper Size
-----
A0
A1
A2
etc
Paper Weight
------------
80gsm
150gsm etc
Paper mode
----------
Colour
Bw
Paper type
-----------
glass
silk
normal
Tabdividers and tabdivider Type
--------
Binding and Binding Types
--
Laminate and laminate Types
--
Such Inventory items and these all needs to be stored in invoice table
How do you store them in Database using proper RDBMS.
As per my opinion for each list a master table and retrieval with JOINS. However this may be a little bit complex adding too many tables into the database.
This normalisation is having bit of problem when storing all this information against a Invoice. This is causing too many columns in invoice table.
Other way putting all of them into a one table with more columns and then each row will be a combination of them.. (hacking algorithm 4 list with 4 items over 24 records which will have reference ID).
Which one do you think the best and why!!
Your initial idea is correct. And anyone claiming that four tables is "a little bit complex" and/or "too many tables" shouldn't be doing database work. This is what RDBMS's are designed (and tuned) to do.
Each of these 4 items is an individual property of something so they can't simply be put, as is, into a table that merges them. As you had thought, you start with:
PaperSize
PaperWeight
PaperMode
PaperType
These are lookup tables and hence should have non-auto-incrementing ID fields.
These will be used as Foreign Key fields for the main paper-based entities.
Or if they can only exist in certain combinations, then there would need to be a relationship table to capture/manage what those valid combinations are. But those four paper "properties" would still be separate tables that Foreign Key to the relationship table. Some people would put an separate ID field on that relationship table to uniquely identify the combination via a single value. Personally, I wouldn't do that unless there was a technical requirement such as Replication (or some other process/feature) that required that each table had a single-field key. Instead, I would just make the PK out of the four ID fields that point to those paper "property" lookup tables. Then those four fields would still go into any paper-based entities. At that point the main paper entity tables would look about the same as they would if there wasn't the relationship table, the difference being that instead of having 4 FKs of a single ID field each, one to each of the paper "property" tables, there would be a single FK of 4 ID fields pointing back to the PK of the relationship table.
Why not jam everything into a single table? Because:
It defeats the purpose of using a Relational Database Management System to flatten out the data into a non-relational structure.
It is harder to grow that structure over time
It makes finding all paper entities of a particular property clunkier
It makes finding all paper entities of a particular property slower / less efficient
maybe other reasons?
EDIT:
Regarding the new info (e.g. Invoice Table, etc) that wasn't in the question when I was writing the above, that should be abstracted via a Product/Inventory table that would capture these combinations. That is what I was referring to as the main paper entities. The Invoice table would simply refer to a ProductID/InventoryID (just as an example) and the Product/Inventory table would have these paper property IDs. I don't see why these properties would be in an Invoice table.
EDIT2:
Regarding the IDs of the "property" lookup tables, one reason that they should not be auto-incrementing is that their values should be taken from Enums in the app layer. These lookup tables are just a means of providing a "data dictionary" so that the database layer can have insight into what these values mean.
Sorry for that noob question but is there any real needs to use one-to-one relationship with tables in your database? You can implement all necessary fields inside one table. Even if data becomes very large you can enumerate column names that you need in SELECT statement instead of using SELECT *. When do you really need this separation?
1 to 0..1
The "1 to 0..1" between super and sub-classes is used as a part of "all classes in separate tables" strategy for implementing inheritance.
A "1 to 0..1" can be represented in a single table with "0..1" portion covered by NULL-able fields. However, if the relationship is mostly "1 to 0" with only a few "1 to 1" rows, splitting-off the "0..1" portion into a separate table might save some storage (and cache performance) benefits. Some databases are thriftier at storing NULLs than others, so a "cut-off point" where this strategy becomes viable can vary considerably.
1 to 1
The real "1 to 1" vertically partitions the data, which may have implications for caching. Databases typically implement caches at the page level, not at the level of individual fields, so even if you select only a few fields from a row, typically the whole page that row belongs to will be cached. If a row is very wide and the selected fields relatively narrow, you'll end-up caching a lot of information you don't actually need. In a situation like that, it may be useful to vertically partition the data, so only the narrower, more frequently used portion or rows gets cached, so more of them can fit into the cache, making the cache effectively "larger".
Another use of vertical partitioning is to change the locking behavior: databases typically cannot lock at the level of individual fields, only the whole rows. By splitting the row, you are allowing a lock to take place on only one of its halfs.
Triggers are also typically table-specific. While you can theoretically have just one table and have the trigger ignore the "wrong half" of the row, some databases may impose additional limits on what a trigger can and cannot do that could make this impractical. For example, Oracle doesn't let you modify the mutating table - by having separate tables, only one of them may be mutating so you can still modify the other one from your trigger.
Separate tables may allow more granular security.
These considerations are irrelevant in most cases, so in most cases you should consider merging the "1 to 1" tables into a single table.
See also: Why use a 1-to-1 relationship in database design?
My 2 cents.
I work in a place where we all develop in a large application, and everything is a module. For example, we have a users table, and we have a module that adds facebook details for a user, another module that adds twitter details to a user. We could decide to unplug one of those modules and remove all its functionality from our application. In this case, every module adds their own table with 1:1 relationships to the global users table, like this:
create table users ( id int primary key, ...);
create table users_fbdata ( id int primary key, ..., constraint users foreign key ...)
create table users_twdata ( id int primary key, ..., constraint users foreign key ...)
If you place two one-to-one tables in one, its likely you'll have semantics issue. For example, if every device has one remote controller, it doesn't sound quite good to place the device and the remote controller with their bunch of characteristics in one table. You might even have to spend time figuring out if a certain attribute belongs to the device or the remote controller.
There might be cases, when half of your columns will stay empty for a long while, or will not ever be filled in. For example, a car could have one trailer with a bunch of characteristics, or might have none. So you'll have lots of unused attributes.
If your table has 20 attributes, and only 4 of them are used occasionally, it makes sense to break the table into 2 tables for performance issues.
In such cases it isn't good to have everything in one table. Besides, it isn't easy to deal with a table that has 45 columns!
If data in one table is related to, but does not 'belong' to the entity described by the other, then that's a candidate to keep it separate.
This could provide advantages in future, if the separate data needs to be related to some other entity, also.
The most sensible time to use this would be if there were two separate concepts that would only ever relate in this way. For example, a Car can only have one current Driver, and the Driver can only drive one car at a time - so the relationship between the concepts of Car and Driver would be 1 to 1. I accept that this is contrived example to demonstrate the point.
Another reason is that you want to specialize a concept in different ways. If you have a Person table and want to add the concept of different types of Person, such as Employee, Customer, Shareholder - each one of these would need different sets of data. The data that is similar between them would be on the Person table, the specialist information would be on the specific tables for Customer, Shareholder, Employee.
Some database engines struggle to efficiently add a new column to a very large table (many rows) and I have seen extension-tables used to contain the new column, rather than the new column being added to the original table. This is one of the more suspect uses of additional tables.
You may also decide to divide the data for a single concept between two different tables for performance or readability issues, but this is a reasonably special case if you are starting from scratch - these issues will show themselves later.
First, I think it is a question of modelling and defining what consist a separate entity. Suppose you have customers with one and only one single address. Of course you could implement everything in a single table customer, but if, in the future you allow him to have 2 or more addresses, then you will need to refactor that (not a problem, but take a conscious decision).
I can also think of an interesting case not mentioned in other answers where splitting the table could be useful:
Imagine, again, you have customers with a single address each, but this time it is optional to have an address. Of course you could implement that as a bunch of NULL-able columns such as ZIP,state,street. But suppose that given that you do have an address the state is not optional, but the ZIP is. How to model that in a single table? You could use a constraint on the customer table, but it is much easier to divide in another table and make the foreign_key NULLable. That way your model is much more explicit in saying that the entity address is optional, and that ZIP is an optional attribute of that entity.
not very often.
you may find some benefit if you need to implement some security - so some users can see some of the columns (table1) but not others (table2)..
of course some databases (Oracle) allow you to do this kind of security in the same table, but some others may not.
You are referring to database normalization. One example that I can think of in an application that I maintain is Items. The application allows the user to sell many different types of items (i.e. InventoryItems, NonInventoryItems, ServiceItems, etc...). While I could store all of the fields required by every item in one Items table, it is much easier to maintain to have a base Item table that contains fields common to all items and then separate tables for each item type (i.e. Inventory, NonInventory, etc..) which contain fields specific to only that item type. Then, the item table would have a foreign key to the specific item type that it represents. The relationship between the specific item tables and the base item table would be one-to-one.
Below, is an article on normalization.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283878
As with all design questions the answer is "it depends."
There are few considerations:
how large will the table get (both in terms of fields and rows)? It can be inconvenient to house your users' name, password with other less commonly used data both from a maintenance and programming perspective
fields in the combined table which have constraints could become cumbersome to manage over time. for example, if a trigger needs to fire for a specific field, that's going to happen for every update to the table regardless of whether that field was affected.
how certain are you that the relationship will be 1:1? As This question points out, things get can complicated quickly.
Another use case can be the following: you might import data from some source and update it daily, e.g. information about books. Then, you add data yourself about some books. Then it makes sense to put the imported data in another table than your own data.
I normally encounter two general kinds of 1:1 relationship in practice:
IS-A relationships, also known as supertype/subtype relationships. This is when one kind of entity is actually a type of another entity (EntityA IS A EntityB). Examples:
Person entity, with separate entities for Accountant, Engineer, Salesperson, within the same company.
Item entity, with separate entities for Widget, RawMaterial, FinishedGood, etc.
Car entity, with separate entities for Truck, Sedan, etc.
In all these situations, the supertype entity (e.g. Person, Item or Car) would have the attributes common to all subtypes, and the subtype entities would have attributes unique to each subtype. The primary key of the subtype would be the same as that of the supertype.
"Boss" relationships. This is when a person is the unique boss or manager or supervisor of an organizational unit (department, company, etc.). When there is only one boss allowed for an organizational unit, then there is a 1:1 relationship between the person entity that represents the boss and the organizational unit entity.
The main time to use a one-to-one relationship is when inheritance is involved.
Below, a person can be a staff and/or a customer. The staff and customer inherit the person attributes. The advantage being if a person is a staff AND a customer their details are stored only once, in the generic person table. The child tables have details specific to staff and customers.
In my time of programming i encountered this only in one situation. Which is when there is a 1-to-many and an 1-to-1 relationship between the same 2 entities ("Entity A" and "Entity B").
When "Entity A" has multiple "Entity B" and "Entity B" has only 1 "Entity A"
and
"Entity A" has only 1 current "Entity B" and "Entity B" has only 1 "Entity A".
For example, a Car can only have one current Driver, and the Driver can only drive one car at a time - so the relationship between the concepts of Car and Driver would be 1 to 1. - I borrowed this example from #Steve Fenton's answer
Where a Driver can drive multiple Cars, just not at the same time. So the Car and Driver entities are 1-to-many or many-to-many. But if we need to know who the current driver is, then we also need the 1-to-1 relation.
Another use case might be if the maximum number of columns in the database table is exceeded. Then you could join another table using OneToOne
I would like to establish a many-to-many relationship with a constraint that only one or no entity from each side of the relationship can be linked at any one time.
A good analogy to the problem is cars and parking garage spaces. There are many cars and many spaces. A space can contain one car or be empty; a car can only be in one space at a time, or no space (not parked).
We have a Cars table and a Spaces table (and possibly a linking table). Each row in the cars table represents a unique instance of a car (with license, owner, model, etc.) and each row in the Spaces table represents a unique parking space (with address of garage floor level, row and number). What is the best way to link these tables in the database and enforce the constraint describe above?
(I am using C#, NHibernate and Oracle.)
If you're not worried about history - ie only worried about "now", do this:
create table parking (
car_id references car,
space_id references space,
unique car_id,
unique space_id
);
By making both car and space references unique, you restrict each side to a maximum of one link - ie a car can be parked in at most one space, and a space can has at most one car parked in it.
in any relational database, many to many relationships must have a join table to represent the combinations. As provided in the answer (but without much of the theoretical background), you cannot represent a many to many relationship without having a table in the middle to store all the combinations.
It was also mentioned in the solution that it only solves your problem if you don't need history. Trust me when I tell you that real world applications almost always need to represent historical data. There are many ways to do this, but a simple method might be to create what's called a ternary relationship with an additional table. You could, in theory, create a "time" table that also links its primary key (say a distinct timestamp) with the inherited keys of the other two source tables. this would enable you to prevent errors where two cars are located in the same parking spot during the same time. using a time table can allow you the ability to re-use the same time data for multiple parking spots using a simple integer id.
So, your data tables might look like so
table car
car_id (integers/numbers are fastest to index)
...
table parking-space
space_id
location
table timeslot
time_id integer
begin_datetime (don't use seconds unless you must!)
end_time (don't use seconds unless you must!)
now, here's where it gets fun. You add the middle table with a composite primary key that is made up of car.car_id + parking_space.space_id + time_id. There are other things you could add to optimize here, but you get the idea, I hope.
table reservation
car_id PK
parking_space_id PK
time_id PK (it's an integer - just try to keep it as highly granular as possible - 30 minute increments or something - if you allow this to include seconds / milliseconds /etc the advantages are cancelled out because you can't re-use the same value from the time table)
(this would also be the place to store variable rates, discounts, etc distinct to this particular account, reservation, etc).
now, you can reduce the amount of data because you aren't replicating the timestamp in the join table (reservation). By using an integer, you can re-use that timeslot for multiple parking spaces, but you could also apply a constraint preventing two cars from renting that given spot for the same "timeslot" for a given day / timeframe. This would also make it easier to store some history about the customers - who knows, you might want to see reports on customers who rent more often and offer them discounts or something.
By using the ternary relationship model, you are making each spot unique to a given timeslot (perhaps with some added validation rules), so the system can only store one car in one parking spot for one given time period.
By using integers as keys instead of timestamps, you are assured that the database won't need to do any heavy lifting to index the keys and sort / query against. This is a common practice in data warehousing / OLAP reporting when you have massive datasets and you need efficiency. I think it applies here as well.
create a third table.
parking
--------
car_id
space_id
start_dt
end_dt
for the constraint, i guess the problem with your situation is that you need to check a complex rule against the intersection table itself. if you try this in a trigger, it will report a mutation.
one way to avoid this would be to replicate the table, and query against this replication for the constraint.
We always name lookup tables - such as Countries,Cities,Regions ... etc - as below :
EntityName_LK OR LK_EntityName ( Countries_LK OR LK_Countries )
But I ask if any one have more better naming conversions for lookup tables ?
Edit:
We think to make postfix or prefix to solve like a conflict :
if we have User tables and lookup table for UserTypes (ID-Name) and we have a relation many to many between User & UserTypes that make us a table which we can name it like Types_For_User that may make confusion between UserTypes & Types_For_User So we like to make lookup table UserTypes to be like UserTypesLK to be obvious to all
Before you decide you need the "lookup" moniker, you should try to understand why you are designating some tables as "lookups" and not others. Each table should represent an entity unto itself.
What happens when a table that was designated as a "lookup" grows in scope and is no longer considered a "lookup"? You are either left with changing the table name which can be onerous or leaving it as is and having to explain to everyone that a given table isn't really a "lookup".
A common scenario mentioned in the comments related to a junction table. For example, suppose a User can have multiple "Types" which are expressed in a junction table with two foreign keys. Should that table be called User_UserTypes? To this scenario, I would first say that I prefer to use the suffix Member on the junction table. So we would have Users, UserTypes, UserTypeMembers. Secondly, the word "type" in this context is quite generic. Does a UserType really mean a Role? The term you use can make all the difference. If UserTypes are really Roles, then our table names become Users, Roles, RoleMembers which seems quite clear.
Here are two concerns for whether to use a prefix or suffix.
In a sorted list of tables, do you want the LK tables to be together or do you want all tables pertaining to EntityName to appear together
When programming in environments with auto-complete, are you likely to want to type "LK" to get the list of tables or the beginning of EntityName?
I think there are arguments for either, but I would choose to start with EntityName.
Every table can become a lookup table.
Consider that a person is a lookup in an Invoice table.
So in my opinion, tables should just be named the (singular) entity name, e.g. Person, Invoice.
What you do want is a standard for the column names and constraints, such as
FK_Invoice_Person (in table invoice, link to person)
PersonID or Person_ID (column in table invoice, linking to entity Person)
At the end of the day, it is all up to personal preference (if you can get away with dictating it) or team standards.
updated
If you have lookups that pertain only to entities, like Invoice_Terms which is a lookup from a list of 4 scenarios, then you could name it as Invoice_LK_Terms which would make it appear by name grouped under Invoice. Another way is to have a single lookup table for simple single-value lookups, separated by the function (table+column) it is for, e.g.
Lookups
Table | Column | Value
There is only one type of table and I don't believe there is any good reason for calling some tables "lookup" tables. Use a naming convention that works equally for every table.
One area where table naming conventions can help is data migration between environments. We often have to move data in lookup tables (which constrain values which may appear in other tables) along with schema changes, as these allowed value lists change. Currently we don't name lookup tables differently, but we are considering it to prevent the migration guy asking "which tables are lookup tables again?" every time.