I am using SQL Server 2005 Express and Visual Studio 2008.
I have a database which has a table with 400 Columns. Things were (just about manageable) until I had to perform bi-directional sync between several databases.
I am wondering what arguments are for and against using 400 column database or 40 table database are?
The table in not normalised and comprises of mainly nvarchar(64) columns and some TEXT columns. (there are no datatypes as it was converted from text files).
There is one other table that links to this table and is a 1-1 relationship (i.e one entry relates to one entry in the 400 column table).
The table is a list files that contained parameters that are "plugged" into a application.
I look forward to your replies.
Thank you
Based on your process description I would start with something like this. The model is simplified, does not capture history, etc -- but, it is a good starting point. Note: parameter = property.
- Setup is a collection of properties. One setup can have many properties, one property belongs to one setup only.
- Machine can have many setups, one setup belongs to one machine only.
- Property is of a specific type (temperature, run time, spindle speed), there can be many properties of a certain type.
- Measurement and trait are types of properties. Measurement is a numeric property, like speed. Trait is a descriptive property, like color or some text.
For having a wide table:
Quick to report on as it's presumably denormalized and so no joins are needed.
Easy to understand for end-consumers as they don't need to hold a data model in their heads.
Against having a wide table:
Probably need to have multiple composite indexes to get good query performance
More difficult to maintain data consistency i.e. need to update multiple rows when data changes if that data is on multiple rows
As you're having to update multiple rows and maintain multiple indexes, concurrent performance for updates may become an issue as locks escalate.
You might end up with records with loads of nulls in columns if the attribute isn't relevant to the entity on that row which can make handling results awkward.
If lazy developers do a SELECT * from the table you end up dragging loads of data across the network, so you generally have to maintain suitable subset views.
So it all really depends on what you're doing. If the main purpose of the table is OLAP reporting and updates are infrequent and affect few rows then perhaps a wide, denormalized table is the right thing to have. In an OLTP environment then it's probably not and you should prefer narrower tables. (I generally design in 3NF and then denormalize for query performance as I go along.)
You could always take the approach of normalizing and providing a wide-view for readers if that's what they want to see.
Without knowing more about the situation it's not really possible to say more about the pros and cons in your particular circumstance.
Edit:
Given what you've said in your comments, have you considered just having a long & skinny name=value pair table so you'd just have UserId, PropertyName, PropertyValue columns? You might want to add in some other meta-attributes into it too; timestamp, version, or whatever. SQL Server is quite efficient at handling these sorts of tables so don't discount a simple solution like this out-of-hand.
Related
I'm part of a team architecting an Operational Data Store (ODS) database, using SQL Server 2012, that will be used by some of our analysts to do predictive modeling. The ODS will contain manufacturing production data for a single product we make.
We will have hundreds of tables in the ODS. However, we will have a single core table that will contain critical information (lifecycle info) about each item manufactured (tens of millions each year). Our product is manufactured in a manufacturing plant and spends roughly 2.5 hours moving through various processes along a production line. We want to store various, individual, pieces of manufacturing and post manufacturing information in this core table. An example piece of data might be the time the product entered a particular oven.
We have a decision to make on how to architect this table. We can create a wide table (many columns) or a narrow table where most columns are rows (as property values). I have never designed and worked with a table structure that is very narrow and columns are treated as rows in the table.
I'd like some feedback on the pros and cons of a wide table vs. a narrow table. The following might be useful in helping with this discussion:
Number of products produced each year: Several million (each of these product instances will be a row in the core table)
Will this table be queried often: Yes, very often. It will be the parent to many child tables.
Potential number of columns (or row properties): 75 to 150+
If more information would be useful, I'd be glad to provide it.
Wide tables, static properties
You are tracking a single product through a well-defined manufacturing process. This data model sounds very static, and would lend itself to a wide table with many columns that are consistently populated with data.
Narrow tables, dynamic properties
If you had many, many products with lots of variation in the manufacturing process, it would be better suited for a narrow table, where you could easily add new properties for tracking.
Difficult to query a narrow table
However, even simple querying of a narrow table can extremely difficult. For example, what if you needed to sort the data by a certain property when that property is shuffled amongst 100+ other property rows? How would you get all the rows together to form a single "record" and then sort the record groups within your result set?
Flat tables simpler to query
Depending on how you need to view and analyze the data, you may find yourself constantly using pivot or crosstab queries. If that's the case, then why not flatten out the storage table to begin with?
Or do both
Another option is to do both: Store the data narrowly, and use a transformation process to flatten it out for ease of reporting. That way you can quickly begin tracking new properties (just by adding rows), and then you can work on getting your reporting tables and transformation process updated to utilize the new data.
How wide is too wide? Well, there can be several problems with wide tables.
One problem is that wide tables tend to deviate from the rules for normalizing data. This in turn can result in tricky update problems where you have to be careful to prevent the database from entering a self contradictory state. There's no particular answer to how wide it too wide here. Just apply the normalization rules, and you'll end up decomposing the table.
However, some databases are not built with normalization as the guiding principle. In particular, consider fact tables in star schemas. There are times when some of the coulmns are determined by some subset of the FK's, and this can violate 3NF or even 2NF. Keeping fact tables skinny is still important in star schemas, but it's for a different reason, namely speed. Sometimes, a fact table can be made skinnier by pushing data out to one of the dimension tables. Sometimes, you can decompose a star into two or more related stars.
Your case sounds like the second reason given above, even though your design probably isn't a star schema. Still, star schema design principles might help you improve your design.
I'm looking at the best practice approach here. I have a web page that has several drop down options. The drop downs are not related, they are for misc. values (location, building codes, etc). The database right now has a table for each set of options (e.g. table for building codes, table for locations, etc). I'm wondering if I could just combine them all into on table (called listOptions) and then just query that one table.
Location Table
LocationID (int)
LocatValue (nvarchar(25))
LocatDescription (nvarchar(25))
BuildingCode Table
BCID (int)
BCValue (nvarchar(25))
BCDescription (nvarchar(25))
Instead of the above, is there any reason why I can't do this?
ListOptions Table
ID (int)
listValue (nvarchar(25))
listDescription (nvarchar(25))
groupID (int) //where groupid corresponds to Location, Building Code, etc
Now, when I query the table, I can pass to the query the groupID to pull back the other values I need.
Putting in one table is an antipattern. These are differnt lookups and you cannot enforce referential integrity in the datbase (which is the ciorrect place to enforce it as applications are often not the only way data gets changed) unless they are in separate tables. Data integrity is FAR more important than saving a few minutes of development time if you need an additonal lookup.
If you plan to use the values later in some referencing FKeys - better use separate tables.
But why do you need "all in one" table? Which problem it solves?
You could do this.
I believe that is your master data and it would not be having any huge amounts of rows that it might create and performance problems.
Secondly, why would you want to do it once your app is up and running. It should have thought about earlier. The tables might be used in a lot of places and it's might be a lot of coding and most importantly testing.
Can you throw further light into your requirements.
You can keep them in separate tables and have your stored procedure return one set of data with a "datatype" key that signifies which set of values go with what option.
However, I would urge you to consider a much different approach. This suggestion is based on years of building data driven websites. If these drop-down options don't change very often then why not build server-side include files instead of querying the database. We did this with most of our websites. Think about it, each time the page is presented you query the database for the same list of values... that data hardly ever changes.
In cases when that data did have the tendency to change, we simply added a routine to the back end admin that rebuilt the server-side include file whenever an add, change or delete was done to one of the lookup values. This reduced database I/O's and spead up the load time of all our websites.
We had approximately 600 websites on the same server all using the same instance of SQL Server (separate databases) our total server database I/O's were drastically reduced.
Edit:
We simply built SSI that looked like this...
<option value="1'>Blue</option>
<option value="2'>Red</option>
<option value="3'>Green</option>
With single table it would be easy to add new groups in favour of creating new tables, but for best practices concerns you should also have a group table so you can name those groups in the db for future maintenance
The best practice depends on your requirements.
Do the values of location and building vary frequently? Where do the values come from? Are they imported from external data? Do other tables refer the unique table (so that I need a two-field key to preper join the tables)?
For example, I use unique table with hetorogeneus data for constants or configuration values.
But if the data vary often or are imported from external source, I prefer use separate tables.
Please, read first my previous question: T-SQL finding of exactly same values in referenced table
The main purpose of this question is to find out if this approach of storing of data is effective.
Maybe it would be better to get rid of PropertyValues table. And use additional PropertyValues nvarchar(max) column in Entities table instead of it. For example instead of
EntityId PropertyId PropertyValue
1 4 Val4
1 5 Val5
1 6 Val6
table, I could store such data in PropertyValues column: "4:Val4;5:Val5;6Val6"
As an alternative, I could store XML in PropertyValues column....
What do you think about the best approach here?
[ADDED]
Please, keep in mind:
Set of properties must be customizable
Objects will have dozens of properties (approximately from 20 to 120). Database will contain thousands of objects
[ADDED]
Data in PropertyValues table will be changed very often. Actually, I store configured products. For example, admin configures that clothes have attributes "type", "size", "color", "buttons type", "label type", "label location" etc... User will select values for these attributes from the system. So, PropertyValues data cannot be effectively cached.
You will hate yourself later if you implement a solution using multi-value attributes (i.e. 4:Val4;5:Val5;6Val6).
XML is marginally better because there are XQuery functions to help you pull out and parse the values. But the XML type is implemented as a CLR type in SQL Server and it can get extremely slow to work with.
The best solution to this problem is one like you have. Use the sql_variant type for the column if it could be any number of data types. Ideally you'd refactor this into multiple tables / entities so that the data type can be something more concrete.
I work with the similar project (web-shop generator). So every product has attribute and every attribute has set of values. It is different tables. And for all of this there are translations in several languages. (So exists additional tables for attributes and values translations).
Why we choose such solution? Because for every client there should be database with the same scheme. So such database scheme is very elastic.
So what about this solution. As always, "it depends" -))
Storage. If your value will be used often for different products, e.g. clothes where attribute "size" and values of sizes will be repeated often, your attribute/values tables will be smaller. Meanwhile, if values will be rather unique that repeatable (e.g. values for attribute "page count" for books), you will get a big enough table with values, where every value will be linked to one product.
Speed. This scheme is not weakest part of project, because here data will be changed rarely. And remember that you always can denormalize database scheme to prepare DW-like solution. You can use caching if database part will be slow too.
Elasticity This is the strongest part of solution. You can easily add/remove attributes and values and ever to move values from one attribute to another!
So answer on your question is not simple. If you prepare elastic scheme with unknown attributes and values, you should use different tables. I suggest to you remember about storing values in CSV strings. It is better to store it as XML (typed and indexed).
UPDATE
I think that PropertyValues will not change often , if comparing with user orders. But if you doubt, you should use denormalization tables or indexed views to speed up.Anyway, changing XML/CSV on large quantity of rows will have poor performance, so "separate table" solution looks good.
The SQL Customer Advisory Team (CAT) has a whitepaper written just for you: Best Practices for Semantic Data Modeling for Performance and Scalability. It goes through the common pitfalls of EAV modeling and recommends how to design a scalable EAV solution.
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.
In a recent project I have seen a tables from 50 to 126 columns.
Should a table hold less columns per table or is it better to separate them out into a new table and use relationships? What are the pros and cons?
Generally it's better to design your tables first to model the data requirements and to satisfy rules of normalization. Then worry about optimizations like how many pages it takes to store a row, etc.
I agree with other posters here that the large number of columns is a potential red flag that your table is not properly normalized. But it might be fine in this case. We can't tell from your description.
In any case, splitting the table up just because the large number of columns makes you uneasy is not the right remedy. Is this really causing any defects or performance bottleneck? You need to measure to be sure, not suppose.
A good rule of thumb that I've found is simply whether or not a table is growing rows as a project continues,
For instance:
On a project I'm working on, the original designers decided to include site permissions as columns in the user table.
So now, we are constantly adding more columns as new features are implemented on the site. obviously this is not optimal. A better solution would be to have a table containing permissions and a join table between users and permissions to assign them.
However, for other more archival information, or tables that simply don't have to grow or need to be cached/minimize pages/can be filtered effectively, having a large table doesn't hurt too much as long as it doesn't hamper maintenance of the project.
At least that is my opinion.
Usually excess columns points to improper normalization, but it is hard to judge without having some more details about your requirements.
I can picture times when it might be necessary to have this many, or more columns. Examples would be if you had to denormalize and cache data - or for a type of row with many attributes. I think the keys are to avoid select * and make sure you are indexing the right columns and composites.
If you had an object detailing the data in the database, would you have a single object with 120 fields, or would you be looking through the data to extract data that is logically distinguishable? You can inline Address data with Customer data, but it makes sense to remove it and put it into an Addresses table, even if it keeps a 1:1 mapping with the Person.
Down the line you might need to have a record of their previous address, and by splitting it out you've removed one major problem refactoring your system.
Are any of the fields duplicated over multiple rows? I.e., are the customer's details replicated, one per invoice? In which case there should be one customer entry in the Customers table, and n entries in the Invoices table.
One place where you need to not fix broken normalisation is where you have a facts table (for auditing, etc) where the purpose is to aggregate data to run analyses on. These tables are usually populated from the properly normalised tables however (overnight for example).
It sounds like you have potential normalization issues.
If you really want to, you can create a new table for each of those columns (a little extreme) or group of related columns, and join it on the ID of each record.
It could certainly affect performance if people are running around with a lot of "Select * from GiantTableWithManyColumns"...
Here are the official statistics for SQL Server 2005
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
Keep in mind these are the maximums, and are not necessarily the best for usability.
Think about splitting the 126 columns into sections.
For instance, if it is some sort of "person" table
you could have
Person
ID, AddressNum, AddressSt, AptNo, Province, Country, PostalCode, Telephone, CellPhone, Fax
But you could separate that into
Person
ID, AddressID, PhoneID
Address
ID, AddressNum, AddressSt, AptNo, Province, Country, PostalCode
Phone
ID, Telephone, Cellphone, fax
In the second one, you could also save yourself from data replication by having all the people with the same address have the same addressId instead of copying the same text over and over.
The UserData table in SharePoint has 201 fields but is designed for a special purpose.
Normal tables should not be this wide in my opinion.
You could probably normalize some more. And read some posts on the web about table optimization.
It is hard to say without knowing a little bit more.
Well, I don't know how many columns are possible in sql but one thing for which I am very sure is that when you design table, each table is an entity means that each table should contain information either about a person, a place, an event or an object. So till in my life I don't know that a thing may have that much data/information.
Second thing that you should notice is that that there is a method called normalization which is basically used to divide data/information into sub section so that one can easily maintain database. I think this will clear your idea.
I'm in a similar position. Yes, there truly is a situation where a normalized table has, like in my case, about 90, columns: a work flow application that tracks many states that a case can have in addition to variable attributes to each state. So as each case (represented by the record) progresses, eventually all columns are filled in for that case. Now in my situation there are 3 logical groupings (15 cols + 10 cols + 65 cols). So do I keep it in one table (index is CaseID), or do I split into 3 tables connected by one-to-one relationship?
Columns in a table1 (merge publication)
246
Columns in a table2 (SQL Server snapshot or transactional publication)
1,000
Columns in a table2 (Oracle snapshot or transactional publication)
995
in a table, we can have maximum 246 column
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx
A table should have as few columns as possible.....
in SQL server tables are stored on pages, 8 pages is an extent
in SQL server a page can hold about 8060 bytes, the more data you can fit on a page the less IOs you have to make to return the data
You probably want to normalize (AKA vertical partitioning) your database