Full disclosure...Trying feverishly here to learn more about databases so I am putting in the time and also tried to get this answer from the source to no avail.
Barry Williams from databaseanswers has this schema posted.
Clients and Fees Schema
I am trying to understand the split of address tables in this schema. Its clear to me that the Addresses table contains the details of a given address. The Client_Addresses and Staff_Addresses tables are what gets me.
1) I understand the use of Primary Foreign Keys as shown but I was under the assumption that when these are used you don't have a resident Primary Key in that same table (date_address_from in this case). Can someone explain the reasoning for both and put it into words how this actually works out?
2) Why would you use date_address_from as the primary key instead of something like client_address_id as the PK? What if someone enters two addresses in one day would there be conflicts in his design? If so or if not, what?
3) Along the lines of normalization...Since both date_address_from and date_address_to are the same in the Client_Addresses and Staff_Addresses table should those fields just not be included in the main Address table?
Evaluation
First an Audit, then the specific answers.
This is not a Data Model. This is not a Database. It is a bucket of fish, with each fish drawn as a rectangle, and where the fins of one fish are caught in the the gills of another, there is a line. There are masses of duplication, as well as masses of missing elements. It is completely unworthy of using as an example to learn anything about database design from.
There is no Normalisation at all; the files are very incomplete (see Mike's answer, there are a hundred more problem like that). The other_details and eg.s crack me up. Each element needs to be identified and stored: StreetNo, ApartmentNo, StreetName, StreetType, etc. not line_1_number_street, which is a group.
Customer and Staff should be normalised into a Person table, with all the elements identified.
And yes, if Customer can be either a Person or an Organisation, then a supertype-subtype structure is required to support that correctly.
So what this really is, the technically accurate terms, is a bunch of flat files, with descriptions for groups of fields. Light years distant from a database or a relational one. Not ready for evaluation or inspection, let alone building something with. In a Relational Data Model, that would be approximately 35 normalised tables, with no duplicated columns.
Barry has (wait for it) over 500 "schemas" on the web. The moment you try to use a second "schema", you will find that (a) they are completely different in terms of use and purpose (b) there is no commonality between them (c) let's say there was a customer file in both; they would be different forms of customer files.
He needs to Normalise the entire single "schema" first,
then present the single normlaised data model in 500 sections or subject areas.
I have written to him about it. No response.
It is important to note also, that he has used some unrecognisable diagramming convention. The problem with these nice interesting pictures is that they convey some things but they do not convey the important things about a database or a design. It is no surprise that a learner is confused; it is not clear to experienced database professionals. There is a reason why there is a standard for modelling Relational databases, and for the notation in Data Models: they convey all the details and subtleties of the design.
There is a lot that Barry has not read about yet: naming conventions; relations; cardinality; etc, too many to list.
The web is full of rubbish, anyone can "publish". There are millions of good- and bad-looking "designs" out there, that are not worth looking at. Or worse, if you look, you will learn completely incorrect methods of "design". In terms of learning about databases and database design, you are best advised to find someone qualified, with demonstrated capability, and learn from them.
Answer
He is using composite keys without spelling it out. The PK for client_addresses is client_id, address_id, date_address_from). That is not a bad key, evidently he expects to record addresses forever.
The notion of keeping addresses in a separate file is a good one, but he has not provided any of the fields required to store normalised addresses, so the "schema" will end up with complete duplication of addresses; in which case, he could remove addresses, and put the lines back in the client and staff files, along with their other_details, and remove three files that serve absolutely no purpose other than occupying disk space.
You are thinking about Associative Tables, which resolve the many-to-many relations in Databases. Yes, there, the columns are only the PKs of the two parent tables. These are not Associative Tables or files; they contain data fields.
It is not the PK, it is the third element of the PK.
The notion of a person being registered at more than one address in a single day is not reasonable; just count the one address they slept the most at.
Others have answered that.
Do not expect to identify any evidence of databases or design or Normalisation in this diagram.
1) In each of those tables the primary key is a compound key consisting of three attributes: (staff_id, address_id, date_address_from) and (client_id, address_id, date_address_from). This presumably means that the mapping of clients/staff to addresses is expected to change over time and that the history of those changes is preserved.
2) There's no obvious reason to create a new "id" attribute in those tables. The compound key does the job adequately. Why would you want to create the same address twice for the same client on the same date? If you did then that might be a reason to modify the design but that seems like an unlikely requirement.
3) No. The apparent purpose is that they are the applicable dates for the mapping of address to client/staff - not dates applicable to the address alone.
3) Along the lines of
normalization...Since both
date_address_from and date_address_to
are the same in the Client_Addresses
and Staff_Addresses table should those
fields just not be included in the
main Address table?
No. But you did find a problem.
The designer has decided that clients and staff are two utterly different things. By "utterly different", I mean they have no attributes in common.
That's not true, is it? Both clients and staff have addresses. I'm sure most of them have telephones, too.
Imagine that someone on staff is also a client. How many places is that person's name stored? That person's address? Can you hear Mr. Rogers in the background saying, "Can you spell 'update anomaly'? . . . I knew you could."
The problem is that the designer was thinking of clients and staff as different kinds of people. They're not. "Client" describes a business relationship between a service provider (usually, that is, not a retailer) and a customer, which might be either a person or a company. "Staff" describes a employment relationship between a company and a person. Not different kinds of people--different kinds of relationships.
Can you see how to fix that?
This 2 extra tables enables you to have address history per one person.
You can have them both in one table, but since staff and client are separated, it is better to separate them as well (b/c client id =1 and staff id =1 can't be used on the same table of address).
there is no "single" solution to a design problem, you can use 1 person table and then add a column to different between staff and client. BUT The major Idea is that the DB should be clear, readable and efficient, and not to save tables.
about 2 - the pk is combined, both clientID, AddressID and from.
so if someone lives 6 month in the states, then 6 month in Israel, and then back to the states, to the same address - you need only 2 address in address table, and 3 in the client_address.
The idea of heaving the from_Date as part of the key is right, although it doesn't guaranty data integrity - as you also need manually to check that there isn't overlapping dates between records of the same person.
about 3 - no (look at 2).
Viewing the data model, i think:
1) PF means that the field is both part of the primary key of the table and foreign key with other table.
2) In the same way, the primary key of Staff_Addresses is {staff_id,address_id,date_adderess_from} not just date_adderess_from
3) The same that 2)
In reference to Staff_Addresses table, the Primary Key on date_address_from basically prevents a record with the same staff_id/address_id entered more than once. Now, i'm no DBA, but i like my PKs to be integers or guids for performance reasons/faster indexing. If i were to do this i would make a new column, say, Staff_Address_Id and make it the PK column and put a unique constraint on staff_id/address_id/date_address_from.
As for your last concern, Addresses table is really a generic address storage structure. It shouldn't care about date ranges during which someone resided there. It's better to be left to specific implementations of an address such as Client/Staff addresses.
Hope this helps a little.
Related
Today I was designing a database for a potential personal project of mine. Since I couldn't decide what would be a better option I asked my teacher Databases, unfortunately he couldn't tell me which of the two options is better than the other and why.
I designed the database for a dummy data generator. Since I want to generate multilangual data I thought of these tables. (But its a simplification of the tables).
(first and last)names: id, name
streets: id, name
languages: id, name
Each names.name and streets.name originates from a language, sometimes a name can have multiple origins (ex: Nick is both a Dutch as an English name).
Each language has multiple names and streets.
These two rules result in a Many-to-Many relationship. At the moment I've got only two tables, but I know I will get between 10 and 20 of these kind of tables.
The regular way one would do this is just make 10 to 20 Many-to-Many relationship tables.
Another idea I came up with was just one Many-to-Many table with a third column which specifies which table the id relates to.
At the moment I've got the design on my other PC so I will update it with my ideas visualized after dinner (2 hours or so).
Which idea is better and why?
To make the project idea a bit clearer:
It is always a hassle to create good and enough realistic looking working data for projects. This application will generate this data for you and return the needed SQL so you only have to run the queries.
The user comes to the site to get the data. He states his tablename, his columnnames and then he can link the columnnames to types of data, think of:
* Firstname
* Lastname
* Email adress (which will be randomly generated from the name of the person)
* Adress details (street, housenumber, zipcode, place, country)
* A lot more
Then, after linking columns with the types the user can set the number of rows he wants to make. The application will then choose a country at random and generate realistic looking data according to the country they live in.
That's actually an excellent question. This sort of thing leads to a genuine problem in database design and there is a real tradeoff. I don't know what rdbms you are using but....
Basically you have four choices, all of them with serious downsides:
1. One M-M table with check constraints that only one fkey can be filled in besides language and one column per potential table. Ick....
2. One M-M table per relationship. This makes things quite hard to manage over time especially if you need to change something from an int to a bigint at some point.
3. One M-M table with a polymorphic relationship. You lose a lot of referential integrity checks when you do this and to make it safe, have fun coding (and testing!) triggers.
4. Look carefully at the advanced features in your rdbms for a solution. For example in postgresql this can be solved with table inheritance. The downside is that you lose portability and end up in advanced territory.
Unfortunately there is no single definite answer. You need to consider the tradeoffs carefully and decide what makes sense for your project. If I was just working with one RDBMS, I would do the last one. But if not, I would probably do one table per relationship and focus on tooling to manage the problems that come up. But the former preference is about my level of knowledge and confidence, and the latter is a bit more of a personal opinion.
So I hope this helps you look at the tradeoffs and select what is right for you.
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 am wondering when and when not to pull a data structure into a separate database table when it appears in several tables.
I have pulled the 12 attribute address structure into a separate table because I have a couple of different entities containing a single address in this format.
But how about my 3 attribute person name structure (given, middle, surname)?
Should this be put into its own table referenced with a foreign key for all the entities containing a name... e.g. the company table has a contact person name, the citizen table has a person name etc.
Are these best left as attributes in the main tables or should they be extracted?
I would usually keep the address on the Person table, unless there was an unusual need for absolutely uniform addresses on each entity, or if an entity could have an arbitrary number of addresses, or if addresses need to be shared between entities, or if it was a large enterprise product where I know I have to invest in infrastructure all over the place or I will end up gutting everything down the road.
Having your addresses in a seperate table is interesting because it's flexible, but in the context of a small project lacking a special need like the ones mentioned above, it's probably a slight waste. Always be aware of the balance between complexity and flexibility. Flexibility is important, but be discriminating... It's easy to invest way too much there!
In concrete terms, the times that I experimented with (for instance) one-to-one relationships for things like addresses, I ended up refactoring them back into the table because it introduced a bunch of headaches including more complex queries, dealing with situations where the address does not exist, etc. More entities also increases your cognitive load -- it makes the project harder to think about. In my case, it was an unecessary cost because there was no concrete need and, in truth, not even a gain in flexibility.
So, based on my experiences, I would "try" to keep the addresses in the same table, and I would definitely keep the names on them - again, unless there was a special need.
So to paraphrase Einstein, make it as simple as possible and no simpler. But in the short term, experiment. It's the best way to learn these lessons.
It's about not repeating information, so you don't want to store the same information in two places when one will do.
Another useful rule of thumb is one entity per table. If you find that one table contains, say, "person" AND "order" then you probably should split those into two tables.
And (putting myself at risk of repeating information...) you might find it helpful to review some database design basics, there are plenty of related questions here on stackoverflow.
Start with these...
What is normalisation?
What is important to keep in mind when designing a database
How many fields is 'too many'?
More tables or more columns?
Creating a person entity across your data model will give you this present and future advantages -
The same person occurring as a contact, or individual in different contexts. Saves redundancy.
Info can be maintained and kept current with far-less effort.
Easier to search for a person and identify them - i.e. is it the same John Smith?
You can expand the information - i.e. maintain addresses for this person far more easily.
Programming will be more consistent and debugging will be easier as well.
Moves you closer to a 'self-documenting' system.
As a counterpoint to the other (entirely valid) replies: within your application's current structure, how likely will it be for a given individual (not just name, the actual "person" -- multiple people could be "John Smith") to appear in more than one table? The less likely this is to happen, the less likely you are to get benefits from normalization.
Another way to think of it is entities. Outside of labels (names), is their any overlap between "customer" entity and an "employee" entity?
Extract them. Your aim should be to have no repeating data in your database.
Read about Normalization
It really depends on the problem you are trying to solve. In general it is probably a good idea to have some sort of 'person' table which holds details of people. However, there are occasions where that is potentially a very bad idea.
One example would be if you are holding details of prescriptions written out to people by a doctor. In some countries it is a legal requirment that the prescription details are held with the name in which they were prescribed NOT the name the person is going under currently. For instance a woman might be prescribed a drug as miss X, but then she gets married and becomes Mrs Y. If you had a person table that was linked to the prescriptions table you would now have the wrong details and would possibly face legal consequences. In that case you would need to probably copy the relevant details of the person into the prescription table, even though this would be duplicating data.
So again - it depends on the problem you are trying to solve. Don't just blindly follow what people consider to be best practices. Understand your data and any issues surrounding it, then try to follow best practices that fit.
Depends on what you're using the database for.
If you want fast queries on your tables you should de-normalize your tables. Having to run multiple JOIN's will take longer and make your queries more complex.
On the other hand if your intention is to have a flexible storage database which is not meant to be hit with a ton of fast-response queries, then normalizing the tables by splitting them out into multiple xref'ed tables will provide more flexibility in your design and reduce the need for submitting duplicated data.
Since de-normalization is "optimization", I would suggest you normalize the tables first, index them properly and see if you're getting any bottlenecks on your queries. If so, flatten the affected tables where needed.
You should really consider your whole database structure and do a ER diagram (entity relationship diagram) first. OF COURSE there should be another table called "Person" where the concept of a person is stored...
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.
I am currently in the process of looking at a restructure our contact management database and I wanted to hear peoples opinions on solving the problem of a number of contact types having shared attributes.
Basically we have 6 contact types which include Person, Company and Position # Company.
In the current structure all of these have an address however in the address table you must store their type in order to join to the contact.
This consistent requirement to join on contact type gets frustrating after a while.
Today I stumbled across a post discussing "Table Inheritance" (http://www.sqlteam.com/article/implementing-table-inheritance-in-sql-server).
Basically you have a parent table and a number of sub tables (in this case each contact type). From there you enforce integrity so that a sub table must have a master equivalent where it's type is defined.
The way I see it, by this method I would no longer need to store the type in tables like address, as the id is unique across all types.
I just wanted to know if anybody had any feelings on this method, whether it is a good way to go, or perhaps alternatives?
I'm using SQL Server 05 & 08 should that make any difference.
Thanks
Ed
I designed a database just like the link you provided suggests. The case was to store the data for many different technical reports. The number of report types is undefined and will probably grow to about 40 different types.
I created one master report table, that has an autoincrement primary key. That table contains all common information like customer, testsite, equipmentid, date etc.
Then I have one table for each report type that contains the spesific information relating to that report type. That table have the same primary key as the master and references the master as well.
My idea for splitting this into different tables with a 1:1 relation (which normally would be a no-no) was to avoid getting one single table with a huge number of columns, that gets very difficult to maintain as your constantly adding columns.
My design with table inheritance gave me segmented data and expandability without beeing difficult to maintain. The only thing I had to do was to write special a special save method to handle writing to two tables automatically. So far I'm very happy with the design and haven't really found any drawbacks, except for a little more complicated save method.
Google on "gen-spec relational modeling". You'll find a lot of articles discussing exactly this pattern. Some of them focus on table design, while others focus on an object oriented approach.
Table inheritance pops up in a few of them.
I know this won't help much now, but initially it may have been better to have an Entity table rather than 6 different contact types. Then each Entity could have as many addresses as necessary and there would be no need for type in the join.
You'll still have the problem that if you want the sub-type fields and you have only the master contact, you'll have to know what table to go looking at - or else join to all of them. But otherwise this is a workable solution to a common problem.
Another possibility (fairly similar in structure, but different in how you think of it) is to simply put all your contacts into one table. Then for the more specific fields (birthday say for people and department for position#company) create separate tables that are associated with that contact.
Contact Table
--------------
Name
Phone Number
Address Table
-------------
Street / state, etc
ContactId
ContactBirthday Table
--------------
Birthday
ContactId
Departments Table
-----------------
Department
ContactId
It requires a different way of thinking of things though - instead of thinking of people vs. companies, you think of the various functional requirements for the task at hand - if you want to send out birthday cards, get all the contacts that have birthdays associated with them, etc..
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you should rethink your normalization strategy (as you seem to be lucky enough to be able to rethink your schema quite fundamentally). If you typically store an address for each contact, then your contact table should have the address fields in it. Alternatively if the address is stored per company then the address should be stored in the company table and your contacts linked to that company.
If your contacts only have one address, or one (or even 3, just not 'many') instance of the other fields, think about rationalizing them into a single table. In my experience having a few null fields is a far better alternative than needing left joins to data you aren't sure exists.
Fortunately for anyone who vehemently disagrees with me you did ask for opinions! :) IMHO you should only normalize when you really need to. Where you are rethinking schemas, denormalization should be considered at every opportunity.
When you have a 7th type, you'll have to create another table.
I'm going to try this approach. Yes, you have to create new tables when you have a new type, but since this table will probably have different columns, you'll end up doing this anyway if you don't use this scheme.
If the tables that inherit the master don't differentiate much from one another, I'd recommend you try another approach.
May I suggest that we just add a Type table. Ie a person has an address, name etc then the student, teacher as each use case presents its self we have a PersonType table that has an entry from the person table to n types and the subsequent new tables teacher, alien, singer as the system eveolves...