I have an MS Access database with plenty of data. It's used by an application me and my team are developing. However, we've never added any foreign keys to this database because we could control relations from the code itself. Never had any problems with this, probably never will either.
However, as development has developed further, I fear there's a risk of losing sight over all the relationships between the 30+ tables, even though we use well-normalized data. So it would be a good idea go get at least the relations between the tables documented.
Altova has created DatabaseSpy which can show the structure of a database but without the relations, there isn't much to display. I could still use to add relations to it all but I don't want to modify the database itself.
Is there any software that can analyse a database by it's structures and data and then do a best-guess about its relations? (Just as documentation, not to modify the database.)
This application was created more than 10 years ago and has over 3000 paying customers who all use it. It's actually document-based, using an XML document for it's internal storage. The database is just used as storage and a single import/export routine converts it back and to XML. Unfortunately, the XML structure isn't very practical to use for documentation and there's a second layer around this XML document to expose it as an object model. This object model is far from perfect too, but that's what 10 years of development can do to an application. We do want to improve it but this takes time and we can't disappoint the current users by delaying new updates.Basically, we're stuck with its current design and to improve it, we need to make sure things are well-documented. That's what I'm working on now.
Only 30+ tables? Shouldn't take but a half hour or an hour to create all the relationships required. Which I'd urge you to do. Yes, I know that you state your code checks for those. But what if you've missed some? What if there are indeed orphaned records? How are you going to know? Or do you have bullet proof routines which go through all your tables looking for all these problems?
Use a largish 23" LCD monitor and have at it.
If your database does not have relationships defined somewhere other than code, there is no real way to guess how tables relate to each other.
Worse, you can't know the type of relationship and whether cascading of update and deletion should occur or not.
Having said that, if you followed some strict rules for naming your foreign key fields, then it could be possible to reconstruct the structure of the relationships.
For instance, I use a scheme like this one:
Table Product
- Field ID /* The Unique ID for a Product */
- Field Designation
- Field Cost
Table Order
- Field ID /* the unique ID for an Order */
- Field ProductID
- Field Quantity
The relationship is easy to detect when looking at the Order: Order.ProductID is related to Product.ID and this can easily be ascertain from code, going through each field.
If you have a similar scheme, then how much you can get out of it depends on how well you follow your own convention, but it could go to 100% accuracy although you're probably have some exceptions (that you can build-in your code or, better, look-up somewhere).
The other solution is if each of your table's unique ID is following a different numbering scheme.
Say your Order.ID is in fact following a scheme like OR001, OR002, etc and Product.ID follows PD001, PD002, etc.
In that case, going through all fields in all tables, you can search for FK records that match each PK.
If you're following a sane convention for naming your fields and tables, then you can probably automate the discovery of the relations between them, store that in a table and manually go through to make corrections.
Once you're done, use that result table to actually build the relationships from code using the Database.CreateRelation() method (look up the Access documentation, there is sample code for it).
You can build a small piece of VBA code, divided in 2 parts:
Step 1 implements the database relations with the database.createrelation method
Step 2 deleted all created relations with the database.delete command
As Tony said, 30 tables are not that much, and the script should be easy to set. Once this set, stop the process after step 1, run the access documenter (tools\analyse\documenter) to get your documentation ready, launch step 2. Your database will then be unchanged and your documentation ready.
I advise you to keep this code and run it regularly against your database to check that your relational model sticks to the data.
There might be a tool out there that might be able to "guess" the relations but I doubt it. Frankly I am scared of databases without proper foreign keys in particular and multi user apps that uses Access as a DBMS as well.
I guess that the app must be some sort of internal tool, otherwise I would suggest that you move to a proper DBMS ( SQL Express is for free) and adds the foreign keys.
Related
First, I know this is a rather subjective question but I need some kind of formal documentation to help me educate my client.
Background - a large enterprise application with hundreds of tables and SP's, all neatly designed with normalized tables and foreign keys using identity columns.
Our client has a few employees writing complex reports in Crystal enterprise using a replicated copy of our production Db.
We have tables that store what I would classify as 'system' base information, such as a list of office locations, or departments within the company, standard set of roles for users, statuses of other objects (open/closed etc), basically data that doesn't change often.
The issue - the report designers and financial analysts are writing queries with hardcoded identity values inside of them. Something like this
SELECT xxx FROM OFFICE WHERE OFFICE_ID = 6
I'm greatly simplifying here, but basically they're using these hard coded int values inside their procedures all over the place.
For SQL developers seeing this will obviously make you facepalm as it's just a built-in instinct not to do this.
However, surprisingly I can't find any documentation or even best practices articles as to why this shouldn't be done.
They would argue it's fine to do this since the values never change, and they're right, within that single system those values won't change, however across multiple environments (staging/QA/Dev) those values can and are absolutely different, making their reporting design approach non-portable and only able to function in 1 isolated server environment.
Do any of the SQL guru's out there have any more in-depth information/articles etc that I can use to help educate my client on why they should avoid this approach?
Seems to me the strongest argument to your report writers is your second to last sentence "...those values can and are absolutely different [between environments]". That would be pretty much the gist of my response to them.
Of course there's always gray area to any question. Identity columns are essentially magic numbers. They have the benefit to the database of being...
Small
Sequential
Fast to seek and join on, sort by and create
...but have the downside of being of completely meaningless, and in effect, randomly assigned (sort the inserts into that table one way, you get a different identity per row than if you sorted the other way). As such, in cases where you have to look up something specific like that, it's common use also include a "business/natural/alternate" key (e.g. maybe (a completely made up example) [CategoryName] where CatgoryName is something short, unique and human readable, while. [CategoryId] is an identity, but not something intended to be sought on)
If you have a website with, say, a dropdown menu, usually the natural key gets put into the visible part of the drop down, and the surrogate/identity key gets passed around on the back end, invisible to the end user.
This gets a little trickier when you have people writing queries directly against the database. If they're owners of the data, they may know things about the larger data structure which they can take advantage of in *cough "clever" ways. If you know the keys wont change and you know what those values are, there might be a case to be made just referencing those. But again, not if they're going to be different when you query a different server.
Of course the flip side is, if you don't want them to use the identity values, you'll have to give them an alternative. And if your tables don't already include a business/natural/alternate key, you're going to have to add one wherever one doesn't already exist.
Also, there's nothing wrong with that alternate key being an integer too (maybe you already have company-wide identifiers for your offices of 1, 2, 3 etc), but the point is that it's deterministic no matter where you run your query.
I have an application design question concerning handling data sets in certain situations.
Let's say I have an application where I use some entities. We have an Order, containing information about the client, deadline, etc. Then we have Service entity having one to many relation with an Order. Service contains it's name. Besides that, we have a Rule entity, that sets some rules concerning what to deduct from the material stock. It has one to many relation with Service entity.
Now, my question is: How to handle situation, when I create an Order, and I persist it to the database, with it's relations, but at the same time, I don't want the changes made to entities that happen to be in a relation with the generated order visible. I need to treat the Order and the data associated with it as some kind of a log, so that removing a service from the table, or changing a set of rules, is not changing already generated orders, services, and rules that were used during the process.
Normally, how I would handle that, would be duplicating Services and Rules, and inserting it into new table, so that data would be independent from the one that is used during Order generation. Order would simply point to the duplicated data, instead of the original one, which would fix my problem. But that's data duplication, and as I think, it's not the best way to do it.
So, if you understood my question, do you know any better idea for solving that kind of a problem? I'm sorry if what I wrote doesn't make any sense. Just tell me, and I'll try to express myself in a better way.
I've been looking into the same case resently, so I'd like to share some thoughts.
The idea is to treat each entity, that requires versioning, as an object and store in the database object's instances. Say, for service entity this could be presented like:
service table, that contains only service_id column, PrimaryKey;
service_state (or ..._instance) table, that contains:
service_id, Foreign Key to the service.service_id;
state_start_dt, a moment in time when this state becomes active, NOT NULL;
state_end_dt, a moment in time when this state is obsoleted, NULLable;
all the real attributes of the service;
Primary Key is service_id + state_start_dt.
for sure, state_start_dt::state_end_dt ranges cannot overlap, should be constrained.
What's good in such approach?
You have a full history of state transitions of your essential objects;
You can query system as it was at the given point in time;
Delivery of new configuration can be done in advance by inserting an appropriate record(s) with desired state_start_dt stamps;
Change auditing is integrated into the design (well, a couple of extra columns are required for a comlpete tracing).
What's wrong?
There will be data duplication. To reduce it make sure to split up the instantiating relations. Like: do not create a single table for customer data, create a bunch of those for credentials, addresses, contacts, financial information, etc.
The real Primary Key is service.service_id, while information is kept in a subordinate table service_state. This can lead to situation, when your service exists, while somebody had (intentionally or by mistake) removed all service_state records.
It's difficult to decide at which point in time it is safe to remove state records into the offline archive, for as long as there are entities in the system that reference service, one should check their effective dates prior to removing any state records.
Due to #3, one cannot just delete records from the service_state. In fact, it is also wrong to rely on the state_end_dt column, for service may have been active for a while and then suppressed. And querying service during moment when it was active should indicate service as active. Therefore, status column is required.
I think, that keeping in mind this approach downsides, it is quite nice.
Though I'd like to hear some comments from the Relational Model perspective — especially on the drawbacks of such design.
I would recommend just duplicating the data in separate snapshot table(s). You could certainly use versioning schemes on the main table(s), but I would question how much additional complexity results in the effort to reduce duplicate data. I find that extra complexity in the data model results in a system that is much harder to extend. I would consider duplicate data to be the lesser of 2 evils here.
I am working on an application that someone else wrote and it appears that they are using IDs throughout the application that are not defined in the database. For a simplified example, lets say there is a table called Question:
Question
------------
Id
Text
TypeId
SubTypeId
Currently the SubTypeId column is populated with a set of IDs that do not reference another table in the database. In the code these SubTypeIds are mapped to a specific string in a configuration file.
In the past when I have had these types of values I would create a lookup table and insert the appropriate values, but in this application there is a mapping between the IDs and their corresponding text values in a configuration file.
Is it bad practice to define a lookup table in a configuration file rather than in the database itself?
Is it bad practice to define a lookup table in a configuration file rather than in the database itself?
Absolutely, yes. It brings in a heavy dependence on the code to manage and maintain references, fetch necessary values, etc. In a situation where you now need to create additional functionality, you would rely on copy-pasting the mapping (or importing them, etc.) which is more likely to cause an issue.
It's similar to why DB constraints should be in the DB rather than in the program/application that's accessing it - any maintenance or new application needs to replicate all the behaviour and rules. Having things this way has similar side-affects I've mentioned here in another answer.
Good reasons to have a lookup table:
Since DBs can generally naturally have these kinds of relations, it would be obvious to use them.
Queries first need to be constructed in code for the Type- and SubType- Text vs ID instead of having them as part of the where/having clause of the query that is actually executed.
Speed/Performance - with the right indexes and table structures, you'd benefit from this (and reduce code complexity that manages it)
You don't need to update your code for to add a new Type or SubType, or to edit/delete them.
Possible reasons it was done that way, which I don't think are valid reasons:
The TypeID and SubTypeID are related and the original designer did not know how to create a complex foreign key. (Not a good reason though.)
Another could be 'translation' but that could also be handled using foreign key relations.
In some pieces of code, there may not be a strict TypeID-to-SubTypeID relation and that logic was handled in code rather than in the DB. Again, can be managed using 'flag' values or NULLs if possible. Those specific cases could be handled by designing the DB right and then working around a unique/odd situation in code instead of putting all the dependence on the code.
NoSQL: Original designer may be under the impression that such foreign keys or relations cannot be done in a NoSQL db.
And the obvious 'people' problem vs technical challenge: The original designer may not have had a proper understanding of databases and may have been a programmer who did that application (or was made to do it) without the right knowledge or assistance.
Just to put it out there: If the previous designer was an external contractor, he may have used the code maintenance complexity or 'support' clause as a means to get more business/money.
As a general rule of thumb, I'd say that keeping all the related data in a DB is a better practice since it removes a tacit dependency between the DB and your app, and because it makes the DB more "comprehensible." If the definitions of the SubTypeIDs are in a lookup table it becomes possible to create queries that return human-readable results, etc.
That said, the right answer probably depends a bit on the specifics of the application. If there's very tight coupling between the DB and app to begin with (eg, if the DB isn't going to be accessed by other clients) this is probably a minor concern particularly if the set of SubTypeIDs is small and seldom changes.
I'm working with the new version of a third party application. In this version, the database structure is changed, they say "to improve performance".
The old version of the DB had a general structure like this:
TABLE ENTITY
(
ENTITY_ID,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_1,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_2,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_3,
...
)
TABLE ENTITY_PROPERTIES
(
ENTITY_ID,
PROPERTY_KEY,
PROPERTY_VALUE
)
so we had a main table with fields for the basic properties and a separate table to manage custom properties added by user.
The new version of the DB insted has a structure like this:
TABLE ENTITY
(
ENTITY_ID,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_1,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_2,
STANDARD_PROPERTY_3,
...
)
TABLE ENTITY_PROPERTIES_n
(
ENTITY_ID_n,
CUSTOM_PROPERTY_1,
CUSTOM_PROPERTY_2,
CUSTOM_PROPERTY_3,
...
)
So, now when the user add a custom property, a new column is added to the current ENTITY_PROPERTY table until the max number of columns (managed by application) is reached, then a new table is created.
So, my question is: Is this a correct way to design a DB structure? Is this the only way to "increase performances"? The old structure required many join or sub-select, but this structute don't seems to me very smart (or even correct)...
I have seen this done before on the assumed (often unproven) "expense" of joining - it is basically turning a row-heavy data table into a column-heavy table. They ran into their own limitation, as you imply, by creating new tables when they run out of columns.
I completely disagree with it.
Personally, I would stick with the old structure and re-evaluate the performance issues. That isn't to say the old way is the correct way, it is just marginally better than the "improvement" in my opinion, and removes the need to do large scale re-engineering of database tables and DAL code.
These tables strike me as largely static... caching would be an even better performance improvement without mutilating the database and one I would look at doing first. Do the "expensive" fetch once and stick it in memory somewhere, then forget about your troubles (note, I am making light of the need to manage the Cache, but static data is one of the easiest to manage).
Or, wait for the day you run into the maximum number of tables per database :-)
Others have suggested completely different stores. This is a perfectly viable possibility and if I didn't have an existing database structure I would be considering it too. That said, I see no reason why this structure can't fit into an RDBMS. I have seen it done on almost all large scale apps I have worked on. Interestingly enough, they all went down a similar route and all were mostly "successful" implementations.
No, it's not. It's terrible.
until the max number of column (handled by application) is reached,
then a new table is created.
This sentence says it all. Under no circumstance should an application dynamically create tables. The "old" approach isn't ideal either, but since you have the requirement to let users add custom properties, it has to be like this.
Consider this:
You lose all type-safety as you have to store all values in the column "PROPERTY_VALUE"
Depending on your users, you could have them change the schema beforehand and then let them run some kind of database update batch job, so at least all the properties would be declared in the right datatype. Also, you could lose the entity_id/key thing.
Check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner-platform_effect. This certainly reeks of it
Maybe a RDBMS isn't the right thing for your app. Consider using a key/value based store like MongoDB or another NoSQL database. (http://nosql-database.org/)
From what I know of databases (but I'm certainly not the most experienced), it seems quite a bad idea to do that in your database. If you already know how many max custom properties a user might have, I'd say you'd better set the table number of columns to that value.
Then again, I'm not an expert, but making new columns on the fly isn't the kind of operations databases like. It's gonna bring you more trouble than anything.
If I were you, I'd either fix the number of custom properties, or stick with the old system.
I believe creating a new table for each entity to store properties is a bad design as you could end up bulking the database with tables. The only pro to applying the second method would be that you are not traversing through all of the redundant rows that do not apply to the Entity selected. However using indexes on your database on the original ENTITY_PROPERTIES table could help greatly with performance.
I would personally stick with your initial design, apply indexes and let the database engine determine the best methods for selecting the data rather than separating each entity property into a new table.
There is no "correct" way to design a database - I'm not aware of a universally recognized set of standards other than the famous "normal form" theory; many database designs ignore this standard for performance reasons.
There are ways of evaluating database designs though - performance, maintainability, intelligibility, etc. Quite often, you have to trade these against each other; that's what your change seems to be doing - trading maintainability and intelligibility against performance.
So, the best way to find out if that was a good trade off is to see if the performance gains have materialized. The best way to find that out is to create the proposed schema, load it with a representative dataset, and write queries you will need to run in production.
I'm guessing that the new design will not be perceivably faster for queries like "find STANDARD_PROPERTY_1 from entity where STANDARD_PROPERTY_1 = 'banana'.
I'm guessing it will not be perceivably faster when retrieving all properties for a given entity; in fact it might be slightly slower, because instead of a single join to ENTITY_PROPERTIES, the new design requires joins to several tables. You will be returning "sparse" results - presumably, not all entities will have values in the property_n columns in all ENTITY_PROPERTIES_n tables.
Where the new design may be significantly faster is when you need a compound where clause on custom properties. For instance, finding an entity where custom property 1 is true, custom property 2 is banana, and custom property 3 is not in ('kylie', 'pussycat dolls', 'giraffe') is e`(probably) faster when you can specify columns in the ENTITY_PROPERTIES_n tables instead of rows in the ENTITY_PROPERTIES table. Probably.
As for maintainability - yuck. Your database access code now needs to be far smarter, knowing which table holds which property, and how many columns are too many. The likelihood of entertaining bugs is high - there are more moving parts, and I can't think of any obvious unit tests to make sure that the database access logic is working.
Intelligibility is another concern - this solution is not in most developers' toolbox, it's not an industry-standard pattern. The old solution is pretty widely known - commonly referred to as "entity-attribute-value". This becomes a major issue on long-lived projects where you can't guarantee that the original development team will hang around.
I have inherited the maintenance of a database from a former employee in another department and I believe their database development skills are not really up to snuff.
I have been asked to support or redevelop it.
It appears the database of the data for each record is in one single table, Yes I know and has hundreds of thousands of rows with empty fields.
TableData:
> RowID
> FieldID
> DateData
> NumberData
> TextData
> YesNoData
Only one field (dependent on the datatype required) appears to be populated in this instance for each row - the rest are empty.
There are two other tables which identify details of the Record (Created by etc) and the Field (Updated On, Field datatype)
Looking through the Access front-end code it appears that data for each field and record and field is stored by searching on record and field and then returning the appropriate field with the data.
My question: For what purpose does this achieve, or is this type of development considered the work of an inexperienced database developer?
My best guess is that a table like this is used to store arbitrary data (inferred from the other supporting tables) that won't require schema changes to store information that is "unplanned" or not yet implemented in the business logic of the application.
The questions I would start asking (yourself, any programmers, DBA's, project managers, etc.):
Were the requirements so abstract at the time that it was impossible to create a formal schema with data relationships? (Bad, bad, BAD)
Was the database designer lazy or inexperienced?
Was the programmer lazy or inexperienced? (Better yet, was the programmer the DBA?)
Is the reliability/availability of the data so sensitive that making formal schema changes is hard to do on a regular basis?
Has the project gone through plenty of people before you that simply inherited the problems, and this is a hack solution? (While maybe the original programmer knew where it was intended to go eventually...)
I think what you're really trying to get at here is "does this work, or should I change it?". I'd be shocked if the any read/search queries are optimized at all, as there couldn't be any indexes for such arbitrary data storage. If the application is simply logging information, it probably isn't as big of a deal, as the originator probably just didn't know yet how the data would be used later on, and writing a one-time applet to loop through and create formal objects out of the data would be better than trying to assume everything at the beginning.
Getting a little more targeted, are you running into any bottlenecks in your process because of this particular table, or are you concerned just out of surprise? If the former, I'd figure out how to change it right away. If the latter, I'd take my time figuring out the long-term requirements of the application first.