I have several entities which respresent different types of users who need to be able to log in to a particular system. Additionally, they have different types of information associated with them.
For example: a "general user", which has an e-mail address and "admin user", which has a workstation number (note that this a hypothetical case). Both entities also share common properties like first name, surname, address and telephone number. Finally, they naturally need to have a (unique) user name and a password to log in.
In the application, the user just has to fill in his user name and password, and the functionality of the application changes slightly according to the type of the user. You can imagine that the username needs to be unique for this work.
How should I model this effectively?
I can't just create two tables, because then I can't force a unique constaint on the user name.
I also can't put them all in just one table, because they have different types of specific information associated to them.
I think I might need 3 seperate tables, one for "users" (with user name and password), one for the "general users" and another one for the "admin users", but how would the relations between these work? Or is there another solution?
(By the way, the target DBMS is MySQL, so I don't think generalization is supported in the database system itself).
Your 3 tables approach seems Ok.
In users table have only ID, username, password,usertype.
In general users table have ID, UserID (from users table), other fields.
Same thing for admin users.
Usertype field will tell you from what table to search for additional info
if(usertype==admin)
select * from admins where userid=:id;
else
select * from general where userid=:id;
Two tables. USERS with user names, first, last, etc. ROLES with roles, and a link back to the user name (or user id or whatever). Put a unique constraint on the user name. Put workstation nbr, email, phone, whatever else you need, in the user table. Put 2 columns in the ROLES table -- USERID and ROLE.
You should decide how much specific information is being stored (or likely to be stored in the future) and make the decision based on that. If there are only a handful of fields for each user type then using a single table is alright.
USERS table (name, type, email, password, genfield1, genfield2, adminfield1, adminfield2)
Make sure to include the type (don't assume because some of the fields particular to that user are filled in that the user is of that type) field. Any queries will just need to include the "AND usertype = " clause.
If there are many fields or rules associated with each type then your idea of three tables is the best.
USERS table (ID, type, name, password)
GENUSERS (ID, genfield1, genfield2)
ADMINUSERS(ID, adminfield1, adminfield2)
The constraints between IDs on the table are all you need (and the main USERS table keeps the IDs unique). Works very well in most situations but reports that include both types of users with their specific fields have to be done in two parts (unioned SQL or subqueries or multiple left joins).
You can solve it with one 'general' users table containing the information thats available for all users and 1 table for every specific user type. In your example you will then need 3 tables.
Users: This table holds only information shared between all usertypes, ie. UserId, Name, Address, etc.
GeneralUsers: This table 'extends' the Users table by providing a foreing key UserId that references the Users table. In addition, information specific to general users are held here, fx. EmailAddress, etc.
AdminUsers: As with GeneralUsers, this table also 'extends' the Users table by providing a foreign key UserId referencing the Users table. In addition information specific to admin users are held here, fx. WorkstationId, etc.
With this approach you can add additional 'specializations' if the need arises by simply adding new tables that 'extends' the Users table using a foreign key reference. You can also create several levels of specialization. If for example admin users are general users as well as admin users then AdminUsers could 'extend' GeneralUsers instead of Users simply by using a foreing key to GeneralUsers instead of Users.
When you need to retreive data from this model you need to which type of user to query. If for example you need to query a GeneralUser you will need something similar to:
SELECT * FROM GeneralUsers
LEFT JOIN Users ON GeneralUsers.UserId = Users.UserId
Or if querying an admin user
SELECT * FROM AdminUsers
LEFT JOIN Users ON AdminUsers.UserId = Users.UserId
If you have additional levels of specialization, for example by having admin users also being general users you just join your way back.
SELECT * FROM AdminUsers
LEFT JOIN GeneralUsers ON AdminUsers.UserId = GeneralUsers.UserId
LEFT JOIN Users ON GeneralUsers.UsersId = Users.UserId
I most definitely would not do a model where you have separate tables as in GeneralUser, AdminUser and ReadOnlyUser.
In database design, a good rule of thumb is "Down beats across". Instead of multiple tables (one for each type), I would create a SystemUsers table, and a Roles table and define a join table to put SystemUsers in Roles. Also, I would define individual roles.
This way, a user can be added to and removed from multiple roles.
A role can have multiple permissions, which can be modified at any time.
Joins to other places do not need a GeneralUserId, AdminUserId and ReadOnlyUserId column - just a SystemUserId column.
This is very similar to the ASP.Net role based security model.
alt text http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/2861/rolebasedsecurity.jpg
Related
I am very new into backend stuffs like databases. That being said, I lack the database design knowledge.
I am wondering how and what is the best design for my scenario.
I am creating a social network app where the users can create groups and join other groups. Those groups have places in it. Those places are created by the User in the group
User
Group
Place
Rules:
One User can create and join many Groups
One Group can contain many Users
One Group can have many Places
Each Group have an admin User
I currently have 3 separate tables
1. USER TABLE
ID, EMAIL, USERNAME, PASSWORD, PROFILE PICTURE
2. GROUP TABLE
ID, NAME
3. PLACE TABLE
ID, NAME, COORDINATE, RADIUS
I am extremely confused in designing the proper database for it it.
Question:
How should I design the relation of the table.
I would like to have one User (maybe more) in a Group that has the permission to do certain stuff that normal User cant do. Such as Creating New Place, Deleting A Place
How should I define my table structure?
Any thoughts please? Any help is greatly appreciated!!
Thank you
You will need to have one more table in order to create what is known as a many to many relationship between the users and the groups.
Since you didn't specify the rdbms you are working with, I'll use SQL Server for my code:
CREATE TABLE TblUserToGroup
(
UserToGroup_UserId int FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES TblUser(UserId),
UserToGroup_GroupId int FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES TblGroup(GroupId),
UserToGroup_IsAdmin bit DEFAULT 0
CONSTRAINT UC_UserToGroup UNIQUE(UserToGroup_UserId, UserToGroup_GroupId)
)
As you can see, there is also an IsAdmin column that can take values of 0 or 1. If you only want one admin user for each team, you can add a check constraint to prevent having more then one admin for each group.
in my database i have admins , merchants and drivers .
All of them share many attributes like name/email/phone/credentials..etc
So , the way i designed my database is a tabled called "users" and table for each role [admin,merchant,driver] where shared attributes are stored in users table.
My questions is do i have to maintain an ID for each role for example [ driver_id , merchant_id ] and link it to the user_id or depending only on the user_id and storing the type of the user in users table ?
Depending on the type of queries you'll run on your database, you could have a few different options. If you're going to query the user table without needing information from the role-specific tables, then just store the type of user i.e. role in the users table.
However, if you are going to be including role-specific information that is in the admin, merchant, or driver tables, then it may be beneficial to include a unique merchant_id, admin_id or driver_id in the user table to designate a role and simultaneously act as ID into the appropriately associated table.
Diagramming this in database modeling software can help to identify the relationships between different data pieces within your application to better design your tables and attributes.
Is it better to create tables that store a lot of data that are related to an entity (User for example) or many tables to store said data?
For example:
User Table
Name
Email
Subscription Id
Email Notifications
Permissions
Or
User Table
Name
Email
Subscription Table
User ID
Subscription ID
Notification Table
User ID
Receives?
... etc
Please consider code in this as well, or I would have posted to ServerVault.
From a relational design standpoint what is important is the normal form you're aiming for. In general, if the "column" would require multiple values (subscription_id1, subscription_id2, etc) then it is a repeating group, and that would indicate to you that it needs to be moved to a related table. You've provided very general table and column notes, but taking a cue from the fact that you named "Email Notifications" and "Permissions" with plurals, I'm going to assume that those require related tables.
I want to make an application where there will be different users and each user will have a set of friends which will be put in categories. There will be some default categories, but the user will be able to add his own. I was wondering which will be the best way to do this.
My idea is to have 3 tables - user, friends and categories.
The user table to have fields (one to many) for friends and categories (but I don't know if the user table will need any information about the friends and the categories at all).
The friends table to have a field for categories (one to many) and a field for the user (many to one).
The category table to have fields for user (many to many?) and friends (many to many?).
I'm not sure about the relations, too. I'm using PHP with MySQL and Symfony2 and Doctrine2. Please help!
EDIT
Maybe I haven't described exactly what I need. When you open the app, you see a login form. If you don't have an account, you should register - the registration creates a new user. This user isn't connected with other users (I'm still new to programming and I want something a little easier so it's something like phonebook). Each user has a list of friends and a firend is a row in a table with fields such as name, addres, phone, email, photo, birthday and so on, but they are added by the current user. The friends are not users. Every user is in fact an account with password and username and when you log in there is just a list of friends. So each user creates categories for himself and he has nothing to do with other users and their categories. The category will have only id and name.
So the idea is that you create an account, then create some categories and add friends to them just to have an organiser when you friends are born or where they live, or which is their phone number, but you create them and add the information about them, they are to users themselves. It's not like a social network. Just a notebook where each user can write info about his friends.
First of all, you need to understand the role of intersection tables: if user A labels user B as a friend (i.e. there is a many-to-many relation from user to itself), and you create a new table to represent that relation (the friends table), any additional information about this "friendship" should be linked to that table. So, if a user categorizes his friends in some way, the category applies to friends, not to user. There's no need for a relation between category and user for this specific purpose.
Update: since friends are not users, the friends table will not be an intersection table (and thus have only one reference back to user, denoting the "owner"), but the rest of the answer still applies.
I'm assuming each category will be a row in the category table. Additional information about the category might be added, but it should be limited to that. For instance, if you want to know which user created a category, you could add a foreign key to user labeled for instance "owner" or "created_by". That might be useful if categories created by one user are not to be seen by others.
Finally, you can relate friends with category. If User A can put user B in at most one category, then a foreign key from friends to category should suffice (i.e. a one to many relation). Otherwise, you might need another many-to-many relation, so an additional intersection table should be created (for instance friend_category).
You could avoid this extra table by employing denormalization, having multiple rows in friends where both users are the same (and in the same order) but the category is different (see also this example). Whether this is advantageous or not is beyond the scope of this answer, but IMHO using an extra table is better for now (it might seem more complicated, but it will be easier to maintain in the long run). (Update: if friends is not an intersection table, denormalizing like this is not really an option, so stick with the friend_category table)
In the end, your layout would look like this:
user friends friend_category category
---- ------- --------------- --------
(user fields) <-- user (owner) <-- friend (category fields)
(friend fields) category --> user (owner) --+
^ |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
I can suggest the following table set for this (this scheme applies to the phonebook or social network tasks as well):
Table "Users" that stores all the information about users:
UserId
Name
Phone
Address
... (any other fields)
Table "Categories" that stores information about relationship categories:
CategoryId
Name
Table "Relationships" that stores information about relationships between users:
FirstUserId -> Link to Users table
SecondUserId -> Link to Users table
CategoryId -> Link to Categories table
So, any user is able to add new categories, and then reference them when adding new relationship to another person.
If you need to select all user's friends, you will have to:
select fr.* from Relationships r join Users fr on r.SecondUserId = fr.UserId where r.FirstUserId = <Current user id>
I am having a brain-cease on a data problem that I am in need of modeling. I will do my best to outline the tables, and relationships
users (basic user information name/etc)
users.id
hospitals (basic information about hospital name/etc)
hospitals.id
pages
pages.id
user_id (page can be affiliated with a user)
hospital_id (page can be affiliated with a hospital)
Here is where the new data begins, and I am having an issue
groups (name of a group of pages)
groups.id
groups_pages (linking table)
group_id
page_id
Now here is the tricky part .. a group can be 'owned' by either a user or hospital, but those pages arent necessarily affiliated with that user/hospital .. In addition, there is another type of entity (company) that can 'own' the group
When displaying the group, I will need to know of what type (user / hospital / company) the group is and be able to get the correct affiliated data (name, address, etc)
Im drawing a blank on how to link groups to its respective owner, knowing that its respective owner can be different.
Party is a generic term for person or organization.
Keep all common fields (phone no, address..) in the Party table.
Person and Hospital should have only specific fields for the sub-type.
If the company has different set of columns from Hospital simply add it as another subtype.
If Hospital and company have same columns, rename the Hospital to more generic Organization
PartyType is the discriminator {P,H}
You'd have to use some form of discriminator. Like adding a column with "owner_type", you could then use either an enum, a vchar, or just an int to represent what type of owner the column represents.
Here is a good tutorial on how to model inheritance in a database while maintaining a reasonable normal form and referential integrity.
Condensed version for you: Create another table, owners, and let it keep a minimal set of attributes (what users and hospitals have in common, maybe a full name, address, and of course an id). Users and hospitals will have their respective id columns that will simultaneously be their primary keys and also foreign keys referencing users.id. Give users the attributes that hospital's don't have and vice versa. Now each hospital is represented by two easily joined rows, one from owners and one from hospitals.
This allows you to reference users.id from groups.owner_id.
(There is also a simpler alternative where you create just one table for users and hospitals and put NULLs to all columns that do not apply to a particular row, but that quickly gets unwieldy.)
HospitalGroups(HospitalID, GroupID)
UserGroups(UserID, GroupID)
CompanyGroups(CompanyID, GroupID)
Groups(GroupID,....)
GroupPages(GroupID, PageID)
Pages(PageID, ...)
Would be the classic way.
The discriminator idea mentioned by #Robert would also work, but you lose referential integrity, so you need more code instead of more tables.