In making a pretty standard online store in .NET, I've run in to a bit of an architectural conundrum regarding my database. I have a table "Orders", referenced by a table "OrderItems". The latter references a table "Products".
Now, the orders and orderitems tables are in most aspects immutable, that is, an order created and its orderitems should look the same no matter when you're looking at the tables (for instance, printing a receipt for an order for bookkeeping each year should yield the same receipt the customer got at the time of the order).
I can think of two ways of achieving this behavior, one of which is in use today:
1. Denormalization, where values such as price of a product are copied to the orderitem table.
2. Making referenced tables immutable. The code that handles products could create a new product whenever a value such as the price is changed. Mutable tables referencing the products one would have their references updated, whereas the immutable ones would be fine and dandy with their old reference
What is your preferred way of doing this? Is there a better, more clever way of doing this?
It depends. I'm writing on a quite complex enterprise software that includes a kind of document management and auditing and is used in pharmacy.
Normally, primitive values are denormalized. For instance, if you just need a current state of the customer when the order was created, I would stored it to the order.
There are always more complex data that that need to be available of almost every point in time. There are two approaches: you create a history of them, or you implement a revision control system, which is almost the same.
The history means that every state that ever existed is stored as a separate record, in the same or another table.
I implemented a revision control system, where I split records into two tables, one for the actual item, lets say a product, and the other one for its versions. This way I can reference the product as a whole, or any specific version of it, because both have its own primary key.
This system is used for many entities. I can safely reference an object under revision control from audit trail for instance or other immutable records. At the beginning it seems to be more complex to have such a system, but at the end it is very straight forward and solves many problems at once.
Storing the price in both the Product table and the OrderItem table is NOT denormalizing if the price can change over time. Normalization rules say that every "fact" should be recorded only once in the database. But in this case, just because both numbers are called "price" doesn't make them the same thing. One is the current price, the other is the price as of the date of the sale. These are very different things. Just like "customer zip code" and "store zip code" are completely different fields; the fact that both might be called "zip code" for short does not make them the same thing. Personally, I have a strong aversion to giving fields that hold different data the same name because it creates confusion. I would not call them both "Price": I would call one "Current_Price" and the other "Sale_Price" or something like that.
Not keeping the price at the time of the sale is clearly wrong. If we need to know this -- which we almost surely do -- than we need to save it.
Duplicating the entire product record for every sale or every time the price changes is also wrong. You almost surely have constant data about a product, like description and supplier, that does not change every time the price changes. If you duplicate the product record, you will be duplicating all this data, which definately IS denormalization. This creates many potential problems. Like, if someone fixes a spelling error in the product description, we might now have the new record saying "4-slice toaster" while the old record says "4-slice taster". If we produce a report and sort on the description, they'll get separated and look like different products. Etc.
If the only data that changes about the product and that you care about is the price, then I'd just post the price into the OrderItem record.
If there's lots of data that changes, then you want to break the Product table into two tables: One for the data that is constant or whose history you don't care about, and another for data where you need to track the history. Like, have a ProductBase table with description, vendor, stock number, shipping weight, etc.; and a ProductMutable table with our cost, sale price, and anything else that routinely changes. You probably also want an as-of date, or at least an indication of which is current. The primary key of ProductMutable could then be Product_id plus As_of_date, or if you prefer simple sequential keys for all tables, fine, it at least has a reference to product_id. The OrderItem table references ProductMutable, NOT ProductBase. We find ProductBase via ProductMutable.
I think Denormalization is the way to go.
Also, Product should not have price (when it changes from time to time & when price mean different value to different people -> retailers, customers, bulk sellers etc).
You could also have a price history table where it contains ProductID, FromDate, ToDate, Price, IsActive - to maintain the price history for a product.
Related
I have a table with products that I offer. For each product ever sold, an entry is created in the ProductInstance table. This refers to this instance of the product and contains information such as the next due date (if the product is to be billed monthly) and other information relevant to this instance (e.g. personal branding).
For understanding: The products are service contracts. The template of the contract is stored in the product table (e.g. "Monthly lawn mowing"). The product instance is then e.g. "Monthly lawn mowing in sample street" and contains information like the size of the garden or something specific to this instance of the service instead of the general product.
An invoice is created for a product instance either one time or recurring. An Invoice may consists of several entries. Each entry is represented by an element in the InvoiceEntry table. This is linked to the ProductInstance to create the reference to the invoice.
I want to extend the database with purchase orders. To do this, a record is created in the Order table. This contains a relation to the customer and e.g. the order date. The single products of the order are mapped by an OrderEntry. The initial invoice generated for the order is linked via the field "invoice_id" in the table order. The invoice items from the initial order are created per OrderEntry and create one InvoiceEntry each. However, I want the ProductInstance to be created only after the invoice is paid. Therefore the OrderEntry has a relation to the product and not only to the ProductInstance. Once the order has been created, the instance is created and linked to the OrderEntry.
I see the problem that the relation between Order and Invoice is doubled: once Order <-> Invoice and once Order <-> OrderEntry <-> InvoiceEntry <-> Invoice.
And for the Product: OrderEntry <-> Product and OrderEntry <-> ProductInstance <-> Product.
Model of the described database
My question is if this "duplicate" relation is problematic, or could cause problems later. One case that feels messy to me is, what should I do if I want to upgrade the ProductInstance later (to an other product [e.g. upgrade to bigger service])? The order would still show the old product_id but the instance would point to a new product_id.
This is a nice example of real-life messy requirements, where the 'pure' theory of normalisation has to be tempered by compromises. There's no 'slam-dunk right' approach; there's some definitely 'wrong' approaches -- your proposed schema exhibits some of those. I suspect there's not even a 'best' approach. Thank you for expanding the description of the business context -- especially for the ProductInstance table.
But still your description won't support legally required behaviour:
An invoice is created for a product instance either one time or recurring. An Invoice may consists of several entries. Each entry is represented by an element in the InvoiceEntry table.
... I want the ProductInstance to be created only after the invoice is paid.
An invoice represents an indebtedness from customer to supplier. It applies at one date only, not "recurring". (So leaving out the Invoice date has exactly got in the way of you "thinking about relations".) A recurring or cyclical billing arrangement would be represented by something like a 'contract' table, from which an Invoice is generated by some scheduled process.
Or ... your "recurring" means the invoice is paid once up-front for a recurring service(?) Still you need an Invoice date. The terms of service/its recurrence would be on the ProductInstance table.
I can see no merit in delaying recording the ProductInstance 'til after invoice payment. Where are you going to hold the terms of service in the meantime? If you're raising an invoice, your auditors/the statutory authorities will want you to provide records of what the indebtedness relates to. Create ProductInstance ab initio and put a status on it. (Or in the application look up the Invoice's paid status before actually providing the service.)
There's something else about Invoices you're currently failing to capture -- and that has also lead you to a wrong design: in general there is more making up the total $ value of an invoice than product lines, such as discounts applying to the invoice overall rather than particular products; delivery charges; installation costs or inspection/certification; taxes (local/State/Federal).
From your description perhaps the only one applying is taxes. ("in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.") And taxes are not specific to products/no product_instance_id is applicable on an InvoiceEntry.
For this reason, on ERP schemas in general, there is no foreign key declared from InvoiceEntry to Product/Instance. (In your case you might get away with product_instance_id being nullable, but yeuch.) There might be a system-generated XRef text column, which contains different content according to what the InvoiceEntry represents, but any referencing can't be declared to the schema. (There might be a 'fully normalised' way to represent that with an auxiliary linkage table, but maintaining that in step adds too much complexity to the application.)
I see the problem that the relation between Order and Invoice is doubled: once Order <-> Invoice and once Order <-> OrderEntry <-> InvoiceEntry <-> Invoice.
Again think about the business sequence of operations that generate these records: ordering happens as a prelude to invoicing. You can't put an invoice_id on Order, because you haven't created the Invoice yet. You might put the order_id on Invoice. But here you're again in the situation that not all Invoices arrive via Orders -- some might be cash sales/immediate delivery. (You could make order_id nullable, but yeuch.) For this reason on ERP schemas in general, there is no foreign key declared from Invoice to Order, etc, etc.
And the same thinking with OrderEntry <-> InvoiceEntry: your proposed schema has the sequencing wrong/the reference points the wrong way. (And not every InvoiceEntry will have corresponding OrderEntry.)
On OrderEntry, having all of (OrderEntry)id and product_id and product_instance_id seems to me to give you way too many opportunities for tangling it all up. Can an Order have multiple Entrys for the same product_id? -- why/how? Can it have multiple Entrys for the same product_instance_id? -- why/how? Can there be a product_instance_id which refers to a different product_id than OrderEntry.product_id? This is exactly the sort of risk for confusing entanglement that normalisation aims to remove/reduce.
The customer is ordering a ProductInstance: mowing a particular size of garden at a particular address, fortnightly on a Tuesday afternnon. So OrderEntry.product_instance_id is what you want; .product_id is wrong. So (again) you need to create ProductInstance at time of recording the Order. Furthermore I strongly suspect you don't need an id on OrderEntry; instead give it a compound key (order_entry_id, product_instance_id). [**]
[**] I see you're using 'eloquent'. I suspect this is requiring id on every table. So you're not even using a relational database, this is some sort of Object-Relational hybrid. Insisting on a dedicated single id as key on every table is toxic. It has lead schema designers astray every time I get called in to help -- as here. Please if you can at all avoid it, don't do that.
I have Stock table.
sku
quantity
quantity_sold
price
seller
I have StockExtra table for products that has date/time property (you can think of event tickets)
stock # references stock
quantity
quantity_sold
price
date_at
time_at
datetime_rule # foreign key to another table, it is a rule that describes when events occur
For event tickets, I use stock and seller from the Stock table, but use quantity from StockExtra table. Because a ticket at different date can have different quantity and price.
I've divided the tables but not so sure if it is the best practice.
Now I need to create another table to hold stock data for separate market stores.
(I'm making a system where seller can manage his inventory when he sells products over multiple stores)
One could sell event tickets in amazon.com and in ebay.com for instance.
And the price, quantity in each store might be different.
So there will be one to many relations from Stock to StoreStock.
Stock will hold default price and aggregated quantity/quantity_sold for all stores. StoreStock will hold data for an individual store.
And I'll also need one to many relations from StockExtra to StoreStock due to the same reason, i.e price/quantity might be different for each date/time for event tickets.
So with my current setup,
there will be Stock StockExtra and StoreStock.
Would it be better to have just Stock and StoreStock even though date/time related fields will be empty for non-ticket products?
You should think about reducing the complexity of your system by keeping everything in a consistent way. Keep complex scenarios in the same tables as simple scenarios.
By keeping the same information in different places (e.g. Stock vs StockExtra, or Stock vs StoreStock) you are creating a situation in which your code has to have extra branching to find the data depending on the situation.
When you're going after the data for a single transaction, branching isn't the end of the world, although it is more code to have to write, debug and maintain. However, when you go after data in aggregate, having it spread across multiple potential locations makes your data retrieval much more complicated.
I would recommend keeping everything at the most detailed level. Therefore everything goes in StoreStock even if there is only one store applicable to a particular situation. Then, unless you have a demonstrable performance issue, don't split off StockExtra from Stock - Just use nullable columns in Stock.
It's OK to keep default prices in Stock, but use a more descriptive name for the sake of the next guy that has to maintain your code. I'd advise against tracking sales quantity in the Stock table. Keep this in StoreStock only. Don't keep a pre-calculated quantity on hand value. This will inevitably be out of whack. Instead, track quantities added (receipts) and quantities removed (sales) and calculate quantity on hand dynamically. This will avoid inventory reconciliation problems.
So because I have 4 different product types (books, magazines, gifts, food) I can't just put all products in one "products" table without having a bunch of null values. So I decided to break each product up into their own tables but I know this is just wrong (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/742/23126857873_438655b10f_b.jpg).
I also tried creating an EAV model for this (https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5734/23479108770_8ae693053a_b.jpg), but I got stuck as I'm not sure how to link the publishers and authors tables.
I know this question has been asked a lot but I don't understand ANY of the answer's I've seen. I think this is because I'm a very visual learner and this makes it hard to understand what's being talked about when not a lot of information is given.
Your model is on the right track, except that the product name should be sufficient you don't need Gift name, book name etc. What you put in those tables is the information that is specific to the type of product that the other products don't need. The Product table contains all the common fields. I would use productid in the child tables rather than renaming it giftID, magazineID etc. It is easier to remember what things are celled when you are consistent in nameing them.
Now to be practical, you put as much as you can into the product table especially if you are going to do calculations. I prefer the child tables in this specific case to have what is mostly display information. So product contains the product name, the cost, the type of product, the units the product is sold in etc. The stuff that generally is needed to calculate the cost of an order or to have a report of what was ordered. There may be one or two fields that can contain nulls, but it simplifies the calculation type queries so much it might be worth it.
The meat of the descriptive details though would go in the child table for the type of product. These would usually only be referenced when displaying the product in the shopping area and only one at a time, so you can use the product type to let you only join to the one child table you need for display. So while the order cares about the product number and name and cost calculations, it probably doesn't need to go line by line describing the book ISBN number or the megapixels in a camera. But the description page of the product does need those things.
This approach is not purely relational, although it mostly is, but it does group the information by the meanings of the data and how they will be used which will make the database easier to understand and query. I am a big fan of relational tables because database just work better when they hit at least the third normal form but sometimes you can go too far for practicality, so the meaning of the data and the way you are grouping to use the data (and not just for the user interface, but for later reporting as well) is almost always one of my considerations in design.
Breaking each product type into its own table is fine - let the child tables use the same id as the parent Product table, and create views for the child tables that join with Product
Your case is a classic case of types and subtypes. This is often called class/subclass in object modeling and generalization/specialization in ER modeling. It's a well understood pattern. There are known techniques for dealing with this pattern.
Visit the following tabs, and read the description under the info tab (presented as "learn more"). Also look over the questions grouped under these tags.
single-table-inheritance class-table-inheritance shared-primary-key
If you want to rean in more depth use these buzzwords to search for articles on the web.
You've already discovered and discarded single table inheritance on your own. Other answers have pointed you at shared primary key. Class table inheritance involves a single table for generalized data as well as the four specialized tables. Shared primary key is generally used in conjunction with class table inheritance.
I was a little miffed about the one-to-one relationship explanation on the 'I Think You Mean A Many To One' article.
In this instance for example, a product has one price because the business in question is small, niche, localized and supports only a single currency. Multiple prices per product make no sense in this case? I'm doubtful I'm grasping the concept correctly though, because everywhere I read says it will probably be a many-to-one even if you think it isn't?
Can somebody enlighten me please? :)
In an attempt to gain more reputation so that I can help in comments instead of an "answer" The one-to-many vs one-to-one is this
View a one-to-one as an extension of the table you are looking at.
Table B extends Table A. Meaning the information wasn't necessarily relevant enough to include in the table directly, but has a bidirectional relationship with each other. Basically meaning that As Table A, I am not dependent on the information in Table B, but Table B's information is very dependent on me. For the price example it means that Table A has a row related to a row in table B. So if you entering unique information in your Price table around every item to match in Table A, then this would be useful. As in say you had a description column about the item in your price table. Otherwise the price table in this case may just be irrelevant to have in the schema.
in a one-to-many relationship Table B usually has no reference back to Table A. So in the case of price, the items you are looking at do have a price, but prices aren't exclusive to items. So to better define, A number of things may have the price 9.99, but 9.99 only needs to exist in your pricing table once.
I am not familiar with the article you refer to. However, price is a classic example of a slowly changing dimension. Price may be constant at any point in time, but over time, the price changes.
Such dimensions are typically implemented by having effective and end dates for the period in question.
Now, at a given point in time, a product probably does have only one price. Things that affect the price -- coupons, discounts for the purchaser, volume discounts, for example -- are not properties of the product. These are properties of the transaction.
That said, there may be circumstances where a fixed volume discount does not make sense. So, the "price" for a product might include volume, as well as time.
In any case, I would agree with you that price is not a good example of a 1-1 relationship. There are other factors such as time and volume that affect it.
The invoice database design, might look something like this...
http://www.databaseanswers.org/data_models/invoices_and_payments/index.htm
Now If the user decides to change/revise the product code/description
It will change the previous order and invoice produce code/description :(
What do you do? Copy the product code description to the invoice table instead?
You basically have two options:
either you make your Products table "time-enabled" (also known as "temporal database"), e.g. you keep the "previous" state of your individual product in your table, and you give every entry a ValidFrom / ValidTo pair of dates. That way, if you change your product, you get a new entry, and the previous one remains untouched, referenced from those invoices that used it; only the ValidTo date for the product gets updated
or:
you could copy the products (at least those bits you need for your invoice) to the invoice - that'll make sure you always know what the product looked like when you created the invoice - but this will cause lots of data duplication (not recommended)
See this other Stackoverflow question on temporal databases as another input, and also check out this article on Simple-Talk: Database Design: A Point in Time Architecture