Best database design (model) for user tables - database

Question

I'm developping a web application using google appengine and django, but I think my problem is more general.
The users have the possibility to create tables, look: tables are not represented as TABLES in the database. I give you an example:
First form:
Name of the the table: __________
First column name: __________
Second column name: _________
...
The number of columns is not fixed, but there is a maximum (100 for example). The type in every columns is the same.
Second form (after choosing a particular table the user can fill the table):
column_name1: _____________
column_name2: _____________
....
I'm using this solution, but it's wrong:
class Table(db.Model):
name = db.StringProperty(required = True)
class Column(db.Model):
name = db.StringProperty(required = True)
number = db.IntegerProperty()
table = db.ReferenceProperty(table, collection_name="columns")
class Value(db.Model):
time = db.TimeProperty()
column = db.ReferenceProperty(Column, collection_name="values")
when I want to list a table I take its columns and from every columns I take their values:
data = []
for column in data.columns:
column_data = []
for value in column.values:
column_data.append(value.time)
data.append(column_data)
data = zip(*data)
I think that the problem is the order of the values, because it is not true that the order for one column is the same for the others. I'm waiting for this bug (but until now I never seen it):
Table as I want: as I will got:
a z c a e c
d e f d h f
g h i g z i
Better solutions? Maybe using ListProperty?

Answer 1

Here's a data model that might do the trick for you:
class Table(db.Model):
name = db.StringProperty(required=True)
owner = db.UserProperty()
column_names = db.StringListProperty()
class Row(db.Model):
values = db.ListProperty(yourtype)
table = db.ReferenceProperty(Table, collection_name='rows')
My reasoning:
You don't really need a separate entity to store column names. Since all columns are of the same data type, you only need to store the name, and the fact that they are stored in a list gives you an implicit order number.
By storing the values in a list in the Row entity, you can use an index into the column_names property to find the matching value in the values property.
By storing all of the values for a row together in a single entity, there is no possibility of values appearing out of their correct order.
Caveat emptor:
This model will not work well if the table can have columns added to it after it has been populated with data. To make that possible, every time that a column is added, every existing row belonging to that table would have to have a value appended to its values list. If it were possible to efficiently store dictionaries in the datastore, this would not be a problem, but list can really only be appended to.
Alternatively, you could use Expando...
Another possibility is that you could define the Row model as an Expando, which allows you to dynamically create properties on an entity. You could set column values only for the columns that have values in them, and that you could also add columns to the table after it has data in it and not break anything:
class Row(db.Expando):
table = db.ReferenceProperty(Table, collection_name='rows')
#staticmethod
def __name_for_column_index(index):
return "column_%d" % index
def __getitem__(self, key):
# Allows one to get at the columns of Row entities with
# subscript syntax:
# first_row = Row.get()
# col1 = first_row[1]
# col12 = first_row[12]
value = None
try:
value = self.__dict__[Row.__name_for_column_index]
catch KeyError:
# The given column is not defined for this Row
pass
return value
def __setitem__(self, key, value):
# Allows one to set the columns of Row entities with
# subscript syntax:
# first_row = Row.get()
# first_row[5] = "New values for column 5"
self.__dict__[Row.__name_for_column_index] = value
# In order to allow efficient multiple column changes,
# the put() can go somewhere else.
self.put()

Answer 2

Why don't you add an IntegerProperty to Value for rowNumber and increment it every time you add a new row of values and then you can reconstruct the table by sorting by rowNumber.

Answer 3

You're going to make life very hard for yourself unless your user's 'tables' are actually stored as real tables in a relational database. Find some way of actually creating tables and use the power of an RDBMS, or you're reinventing a very complex and sophisticated wheel.

Answer 4

This is the conceptual idea I would use:
I would create two classes for the data-store:
table this would serve as a
dictionary, storing the structure of
the pseudo-tables your app would
create. it would have two fields :
table_name, column_name,
column_order . where column_order
would give the position of the
column within the table
data
this would store the actual data in
the pseudo-tables. it would have
four fields : row_id, table_name,
column_name , column_data. row_id
would be the same for data
pertaining to the same row and would
be unique for data across the
various pseudo-tables.

Answer 5

Put the data in a LongBlob.
The power of a database is to be able to search and organise data so that you are able to get only the part you want for performances and simplicity issues : you don't want the whole database, you just want a part of it and want it fast. But from what I understand, when you retrieve a user's data, you retrieve it all and display it. So you don't need to sotre the data in a normal "database" way.
What I would suggest is to simply format and store the whole data from a single user in a single column with a suitable type (LongBlob for example). The format would be an object with a list of columns and rows of type. And you define the object in whatever language you use to communicate with the database.
The columns in your (real) database would be : User int, TableNo int, Table Longblob.
If user8 has 3 tables, you will have the following rows :
8, 1, objectcontaintingtable1;
8, 2, objectcontaintingtable2;
8, 3, objectcontaintingtable3;