I am building a music streaming site, where users will be able to purchase and stream mp3's. I have a subset entity diagram which can be described as follows:
I want to normalise the data to 3NF. How many tables would I need? obviously I want to avoid including partial dependancies, which would require more tables than just album, artist, songs - but I'm not sure what else to add? Any thoughts from experience?
Well, you've done the ER level. You need to identify Keys and Attributes before you can work out Functional Dependencies. There is a fair amount of work to do before you get to 3NF. Eg. Song Titles are duplicated.
Also, there are questions:
is the site selling Albums, Songs, or both ? (I've modelled both)
if both, how do you track a sale or download ?
do you care about the same Song title recorded by different Artists ?
Anyway, here is a resolved ▶Entity Relation Diagram◀, at least for the info provided. It is closer to 5NF than 3NF, but I cannot declare it as such, because it is not complete.
Readers who are unfamiliar with the Standard for Modelling Relational Databases may find ▶IDEF1X Notational◀ useful.
It uses a simple Supertype-Subtype structure, the Principle of Orthogonal Design. The Item that is sold ie either an Album xor a Song.
Feel free to ask clarifying questions.
You will need 4 tables: Artists, Songs, Albums, and AlbumSongs.
The last one is required since the exact same song (=same edit/version...) could be included in several albums, so you have there a m-to-m relationship.
I agree with iDevelop but with 1 extra table. Here is how I would model it.
Tables: Artist, Song, Album, AlbumSongMap, SingleInfo
If the song was a released as a single on a different date, you can get that from SingleInfo. The single may have been released with some cover art that is different from the album art. You would store the singles art in SingleInfo. MAYBE a song can be released as a single multiple times, with new cover art or something so it could possibly be a 1-many relation. Otherwise it is 1-1.
If you can join Song with SingleInfo that means it was released as a single. If you can join Song with Album (using the map) then you will find all the album's it was released under.
A digital enhancement to an old song is a new song. (or at least a different binary). You may want to further normalize Song to allow storage of digital enhancements without duplicating songName, etc.
When you switch over from ER modeling to relational modeling (tables), you need one table for each entity. You also need a table for some relationships.
In the diagram you've given us, both relationships are many to one. Many to one relationships do not require a table. You can get away with adding foreign keys to entity tables. Therefore the answer to your question is 3 tables: Artists, Albums and Songs.
However, I question your ER diagram. It seems to me that the "contains" relationship is really many to many. An album clearly contains many songs. But a given song can appear on more than one album. So there should be an arrowhead on the line that connects "contains" to "album".
If you accept this revision to your ER model, then the number of tables increases to 4: Artists, Albums, Songs, and Contains.
A similar argument might be made for Artist and Song. If two artists collaborate on a single song, (e.g. Dolly Parton and Kenny Rogers singing "Islands in the Stream" together,
then you might want to model "produces" as a many to many relationship. Now you need 5 tables: Artists, Albums, Songs, Contains and Produces.
Artists, Albums, and Songs are going to require a PK that identifies the corresponding entity. Entity integrity demands that the correspondence bewteen entity instances and table rows be one-to-one.
The Contains and Produces tables can be built without a separate Id attibute. You will need a pair of FKs in each of these tables, and you can declare a compound PK for each table consisting of the two FKs.
Referential integrity demands that you enforce the validity of FK references, either in your programs or by declaring a references constraint in the DB. I strongly prefer declaring the constraint in the DB.
Related
I'm working on a database project about music and albums in MySQL, where i make a list over some popular artists, their most sold album, and the songs contained within them. But i suddenly got really uncertain of what to do when it comes to filling in the name of the songs for each album. Should i make an individual table for each list of songs, or should all the songs (about 50 of them in total from all the albums) from all the different artists (5 different artists) be filled inn in the same table (i'm eventually gonna export the data and connect it to a PHP folder
Hope the question was clear
All the songs should be in one "Songs" table. Then you create a column "Album ID" in that table which is a foreign key back to the ID column in the albums table. This is how you know which song belongs to which album. (And of course you have the same kind of relationship between "album" and "artist".)
This is called a "one-to-many" relationship and is one of the basic principles of relational database design.
If you ever find yourself creating multiple tables to represent the same kind of data item, you know you've gone wrong.
N.B. If you want to support the idea that the same song (or track probably, to be more accurate, since many different recordings of a song could potentially be made) can be included on multiple albums, then you'll need to implement a "many-to-many" relationship where you have an extra table in between "albums" and "songs" which holds Album ID and Song ID. Each would be a foreign key back to the Albums and Songs tables, respectively. And to ensure no duplication, both fields would be specified as a Compound Primary Key. That way you can list the same Song ID in that table many times against different albums. Same again if you want to have that flexibility in the relationship between "artists" and "albums".
This might be a good time to take a break and study relational database design and data normalisation concepts in some more detail, then you can start to see these patterns for yourself and make the right decision in your schema designs.
Similarly to this question about databases for playlists you should also use one table for the albums and one table for the songs.
Additionally you might also need a table for artists, etc.
Considering that this community has questions related to modeling databases, I am here seeking help.
I'm developing an auction system based on another one seen in a book I'm reading, and I'm having trouble. The problem context is the following:
In the auction system, a user makes product announcements (he/she defines a product). It defines
the product name, and the initial offer (called initial bid). The initial bid expresses the minimum amount to be offering. A
product only exists in the database when it is announced by a user. A
user defines a number of products, but a product belongs to a single
user.
Every product has an expiration date. When a certain date arrives, if
there are no offers for the product, it is not sold. If there are
offers for the product, the highest bidder wins the given product.
The offers have a creation date, and the amount offered. An offer is
made to a product from a user. A user can make different offers for
different products. A product can be offered by different users. The
same user can not do more than two offers for the same product.
This kind of context for me is easy to do. The problem is that I need to store a purchase. (I'm sorry, but I do not know if the word is that in English). I need a way to know which offer was successful, and actually "bought" a product. Relative to what was said, part of my Conceptual Model (Entity Relationship Diagram) is as follows:
I've tried to aggregate USERS with PRODUCTS, and make a connection/relationship between the aggregation and PRODUCTS, which would give me the PURCHASES event. When this was broken down (decomposed) I would have a table showing which offer bought what product.
Nevertheless, I would have a cardinality problem. This table would have two foreign keys. One for BIDS, and the other for PRODUCTS. This would allow an N-N relationship of these two, meaning that I could save more than one bid as the buyer of a product, or that the same bid could "buy" many products (so I say in the resulting PURCHASES table).
Am I not seeing something here? Can you guys help me with this? Thank you for reading, for your time, and patience. And if you need some more detail, please do not hesitate to ask.
EDIT
The property "Initial Bid" on the PRODUCTS entity is not a relationship.
This property represents a monetary value, a minimum amount that an offer must have to be given to a particular product.
You are approaching things backwards. First we determine a relevant application relationship, then we determine its properties. Given an application relationship and the possible application situations that can arise, only certain relationship/association sets/tables can arise. A purchase can have only one bid per product and one product per bid. So it is just a fact that the bid:product cardinality of PURCHASES is 1:1. Say so. This is so regardless of what other application relationships you wish to record. If it were a different application relationship between those entities then the cardinality might be different. Wait--USERS_PRODUCTS and BIDS form exactly such a pair of appplication relationships, with user:product being 1:0..N for the former and 0..N:0..N for the latter. Cardinality for each participant reflects (is a property of) the particular application relationship that a diamond represents.
Similarly: Foreign keys are properties of pairs of relationship/association sets/tables. Declaring them tells the DBMS to enforce that participant id values appear in entity sets/tables. Ie {bid} referencing BIDS and {product} referencing PRODUCTS. And candidate keys (of which one can be a primary key) are a property of a relationship set/table. It is the candidate keys of PURCHASES that lead to declaration of a constraint that enforces its cardinality. It isn't many:many on bid:product because "bid BID purchased product PRODUCT at price $AMOUNT on date DATE" isn't many:many on bid:product. Since either its bid or its product uniquely identify a purchase both {bid} and {product} are candidate keys.
Well... I tried to follow the given advices, and also tried to follow what I had previously spoken to do, using aggregation. It seems to me that the result is correct. Please observe:
Of course, a user makes offers for products. A user record can relate to multiple records in PRODUCTS. Likewise, a product can be offered by multiple users, and thus, a record in PRODUCTS can relate to multiple records on USERS. If I'm wrong on this, please correct me.
Looking at purchase, we see that a product is only properly purchased by a single bid. There is no way to say that a user buys a product, or a product purchase itself. It is through the relationship between USERS and PRODUCTS that an bid is created, and it is an bid that is able to buy a product. Thus, it is necessary to aggregate such a relationship, then set the purchase event.
We must remember that only one product can be purchased for a single bid. So here we have a cardinality of 1 to 1. Decomposition here will ask discretion of the data modeler.
By decomposing this Conceptual Model, we will have the following Logic Model:
Notice how relationships are respected with appropriate attributes. We can know who announced a product (the seller), and we can know what offers were made to it.
Now, as I said before, there is the PURCHASES relationship. As we have a relationship of 1 to 1 here, the rule tells us that we must choose which side the relationship will be interpreted (which entity shall keep such a relationship).
It is usually recommended to keep the relationship on the side that is likely in the future to become a "many". There is no need to do so in this case because it is clear that this relationship can not be preserved in a BIDS record. Therefore, we maintain such a relationship portrayed by "Winner Bid" on the PRODUCTS entity. As you can see, I set a unique identifier for BIDS. By defining the Physical Model, we have a surrogate key.
Well, I finish my answer here, but I think I can not consider it right yet. I would like someone to comment anything if possible. Thank you.
EDIT
I'd like to apologize. It seems that there was a mistake on my part. Well, I currently live in Brazil, and here we learn the ER-Diagram in a way that seems to me to be different from what many of you are used to. Until yesterday I've been answering some questions related to the subject here in the community, and I found odd certain different notations used. Only now I'm noticing that we are not speaking the same language. I believe it was embarrassing for me in a way. I'm sorry. Really, I'm sorry.
Oh, and one more thing (it may be interesting for someone):
The cardinality between BIDS and PRODUCTS is really wrong. It should
be 0 to 1 in both, as was said in the comments.
There are no relationships relating with relationships here. We have
what is called here (in my country, or in my past course)
"Aggregation" (Represented in the first drawing by the rectangle with clipped lines). The internal relationship (BIDS) when decomposed will
become an entity, and the relationship between BIDS and PRODUCTS is
made later. An aggregation says that a relationship needs to be resolved first so that it can relate with another entity. This creates a certain restriction, which may be necessary in certain business rules. It says that the joining of two entities define records that relate to records of another entity.
Certain relationships do not necessarily need to be named. Once you
break down certain types of relationships, there is no need (it's
optional) to name them (between relations N to N), especially if new
relationship does not arise from these. Of course, if I were to name the white relationships presented, we then would have USER'S BIDS (between USERS and BIDS), and PRODUCT'S BIDS (between BIDS and PRODUCTS).
With respect to my study material, it's all in portuguese, and I believe you will not understand, I do not know. But here's one of the books I read during my past classes:
ISBN: 978-85-365-0252-6
Title: PROJETO de BANCO de DADOS Uma Visão Prática
Authors: Felipe Machado, Mauricio Abreu
Publishing company: EDITORA ÉRICA
COVER:
LINK:
http://www.editorasaraiva.com.br/produtos/show/isbn:9788536502526/titulo:projeto-de-banco-de-dados-uma-visao-pratica-edicao-revisada-e-atualizada/
Well... What do I do now? Haha... I do not know what to do. I'll leave my question here. If someone with the same method that I can help me, I'll be grateful. Thank you.
To record the winning bid requires a functional dependency Product ID -> Bid ID. This could be implemented as one or more nullable columns (since not all products have been purchased yet) in the Products table, or better in a separate table (Purchases) using Product ID as primary key.
Having trouble figuring out relations in this scenario:
I want to create a checkbox list for income types. The UI will present as "What types of income do you receive?". The choices, to keep things simple, could be full-time, part-time and retirement.
Part of me thinks this is a one-to-many relation, and thereby won't necessitate an association table because one individual can have one or more income types. However, taking things literally, "full-time" employment can relate to many individuals. In this case, I won't be showing a summary table of how many of the individuals are "full-time", I am just dealing with one person and determining what their employment status is.
But I don't think of "full-time" as an entity, like, for example, actors and movies - where many actors can be in many movies and many movies can have many different actors.
I guess what's tripping me up is that a user can select more than one option, as opposed to a radio-button list or drop down list.
In this case, which is it?
many-to-many: Person to Employment Type.
Many Persons may share a single Employment Type.
A single Person may have several Employment Types.
Having said that, I've no idea how rich is your business model, but I'd attach Employment Type to an entity called Employment that would refer Employment Type by a many-to-one association (rather than referring it straight from Person).
From my point of view this is a many-to-many relationship.
Full-Time is an entity (suppose a INCOME_TYPES table), exactly like an actor or a movie.
Since you tell us, you won't showing the things income-type-side but only individual-side, there are two alternatives:
De-normalize your schema and put 3-fields in the INDIVIDUALS table. This is not very nice.
If you do some of the things code-side, you can use a bitmask.
for example, 1 is for Full-time, 2 is for Part-Time and 4 is for retirement.
It depends on whether you have the income type as a separate table or whether it is just a string.
For separate table it is many-to-many: Each person has multiple income types. Each income type has multiple persons.
I have this scenario and I'm not sure exactly how it should be modeled in the database. The objects I'm trying to model are: teams, players, the team-player membership, and a list of fees due for each player on a given team. So, the fees depend on both the team and the player.
So, my current approach is the following:
**teams**
id
name
**players**
id
name
**team_players**
id
player_id
team_id
**team_player_fees**
id
team_players_id
amount
send_reminder_on
Schema layout ERD
In this schema, team_players is the junction table for teams and players. And the table team_player_fees has records that belong to records to the junction table.
For example, playerA is on teamA and has the fees of $10 and $20 due in Aug and Feb. PlayerA is also on teamB and has the fees of $25 and $25 due in May and June. Each player/team combination can have a different set of fees.
Questions:
Are there better ways to handle such
a scenario?
Is there a term for this type of
relationship? (so I can google it) Or know of any references with similar structures?
Thus is a perfectly fine design. It is not uncommon for a junction table (AKA intersection table) to have attributes of its own - such as joining_date - and that can include dependent tables. There is, as far as I know, no special name for this arrangement.
One of the reasons why it might feel strange is that these tables frequently don't exist in a logical data model. At that stage they are represented by a many-to-many join notation. It's only when we get to the physical model that we have to materialize the junction table. (Of course many people skip the logical model and go straight to physical.)
There are couples of questions around asking for difference / explanation on identifying and non-identifying relationship in relationship database.
My question is, can you think of a simpler term for these jargons? I understand that technical terms have to be specific and unambiguous though. But having an 'alternative name' might help students relate more easily to the concept behind.
We actually want to use a more layman term in our own database modeling tool, so that first-time users without much computer science background could learn faster.
cheers!
I often see child table or dependent table used as a lay term. You could use either of those terms for a table with an identifying relationship
Then say a referencing table is a table with a non-identifying relationship.
For example, PhoneNumbers is a child of Users, because a phone number has an identifying relationship with its user (i.e. the primary key of PhoneNumbers includes a foreign key to the primary key of Users).
Whereas the Users table has a state column that is a foreign key to the States table, making it a non-identifying relationship. So you could say Users references States, but is not a child of it per se.
I think belongs to would be a good name for the identifying relationship.
A "weak entity type" does not have its own key, just a "partial key", so each entity instance of this weak entity type has to belong to some other entity instance so it can be identified, and this is an "identifying relationship". For example, a landlord could have a database with apartments and rooms. A room can be called kitchen or bathroom, and while that name is unique within an apartment, there will be many rooms in the database with the name kitchen, so it is just a partial key. To uniquely identify a room in the database, you need to say that it is the kitchen in this particular apartment. In other words, the rooms belong to apartments.
I'm going to recommend the term "weak entity" from ER modeling.
Some modelers conceptualize the subject matter as being made up of entities and relationships among entities. This gives rise to Entity-Relationship Modeling (ER Modeling). An attribute can be tied to an entity or a relationship, and values stored in the database are instances of attributes.
If you do ER modeling, there is a kind of entity called a "weak entity". Part of the identity of a weak entity is the identity of a stronger entity, to which the weak one belongs.
An example might be an order in an order processing system. Orders are made up of line items, and each line item contains a product-id, a unit-price, and a quantity. But line items don't have an identifying number across all orders. Instead, a line item is identified by {item number, order number}. In other words, a line item can't exist unless it's part of exactly one order. Item number 1 is the first item in whatever order it belongs to, but you need both numbers to identify an item.
It's easy to turn an ER model into a relational model. It's also easy for people who are experts in the data but know nothing about databases to get used to an ER model of the data they understand.
There are other modelers who argue vehemently against the need for ER modeling. I'm not one of them.
Nothing, absolutely nothing in the kind of modeling where one encounters things such as "relationships" (ER, I presume) is "technical", "precise" or "unambiguous". Nor can it be.
A) ER modeling is always and by necessity informal, because it can never be sufficient to capture/express the entire definition of a database.
B) There are so many different ER dialects out there that it is just impossible for all of them to use exactly the same terms with exactly the same meaning. Recently, I even discovered that some UK university that teaches ER modeling, uses the term "entity subtype" for the very same thing that I always used to name "entity supertype", and vice-versa !
One could use connection.
You have Connection between two tables, where the IDs are the same.
That type of thing.
how about
Association
Link
Correlation