Let's say you are a GM dba and you have to design around the GM models
Is it better to do this?
table_model
type {cadillac, saturn, chevrolet}
Or this?
table_cadillac_model
table_saturn_model
table_chevrolet_model
Let's say that the business lines have the same columns for a model and that there are over a million records for each subtype.
EDIT:
there is a lot of CRUD
there are a lot of very processor intensive reports
in either schema, there is a model_detail table that contains 3-5 records for each model and the details for each model differ (you can't add a cadillac detail to a saturn model)
the dev team doesn't have any issues with db complexity
i'm not really sure that this is a normalization question. even though the structures are the same they might be thought of as different entities.
EDIT:
Reasons for partitioning the structure into multiple tables
- business lines may have different business rules regarding parts
- addModelDetail() could be different for each business line (even though the data format is the same)
- high add/update activity - better performance with partitioned structure instead of single structure (I'm guessing and not sure here)?
I think this is a variation of the EAV problem. When posed as a EAV design, the single table structure generally gets voted as a bad idea. When posed in this manner, the single table strucutre generally gets voted as a good idea. Interesting...
I think the most interesting answer is having two different structures - one for crud and one for reporting. I think I'll try concatenated/flattened view for reporting and multiple tables for crud and see how that works.
Definitely the former example. Do you want to be adding tables to your database whenever you add a new model to your product range?
On data with a lot of writes, (e.g. an OLTP application), it is better to have more, narrower tables (e.g. tables with fewer fields). There will be less lock contention because you're only writing small amounts of data into different tables.
So, based on the criteria you have described, the table structure I would have is:
Vehicle
VehicleType
Other common fields
CadillacVehicle
Fields specific to a Caddy
SaturnVehicle
Fields specific to a Saturn
For reporting, I'd have an entirely different database on an entirely different server that does not have the normalized structure (e.g. just has CadillacVehicle and SaturnVehicle tables with all of the fields from the Vehicle table duplicated into them).
With proper indexes, even the OLTP database could be performant in your SELECT's, regardless of the fact that there are tens of millions of rows. However, since you mentioned that there are processor-intensive reports, that's why I would have a completely separate reporting database.
One last comment. About the business rules... the data store cares not about the business rules. If the business rules are different between models, that really shouldn't factor into your design decisions about the database schema (other than to help dictate which fields are nullable and their data types).
Use the former. Setting up separate tables for the specialisations will complicate your code and doesn't bring any advantages that can't be achieved in other ways. It will also massively simplify your reports.
If the tables really do have the same columns, then the former is the best way to do it. Even if they had different columns, you'd probably still want to have the common columns be in their own table, and store a type designator.
You could try having two separate databases.
One is an OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) system which should be highly normalized so that the data model is highly correct. Report performance must not be an issue, and you would deal with non-reporting query performance with indexes/denormalization etc. on a case-by-case basis. The data model should try to match up very closely with the conceptual model.
The other is a Reports system which should pull data from the OLTP system periodically, and massage and rearrange that data in a way that makes report-generation easier and more performant. The data model should not try to match up too closely with the conceptual model. You should be able to regenerate all the data in the reporting database at any time from the data currently in the main database.
I would say the first way looks better.
Are there reasons you would want to do it the second way?
The first way follows normalization better and is closer to how most relational database schema are developed.
The second way seems to be harder to maintain.
Unless there is a really good reason for doing it the second way I would go with the first method.
Given the description that you have given us, the answer is either.
In other words you haven't given us enough information to give a decent answer. Please describe what kind of queries you expect to perform on the data.
[Having said that, I think the answer is going to be the first one ;-)
As I imaging even though they are different models, the data for each model is probably going to be quite similar.
But this is a complete guess at the moment.]
Edit:
Given your updated edit, I'd say the first one definitely. As they have all the same data then they should go into the same table.
Another thing to consider in defining "better"--will end users be querying this data directly? Highly normalized data is difficult for end-users to work with. Of course this can be overcome with views but it's still something to think about as you're finalizing your design.
I do agree with the other two folks who answered: which form is "better" is subjective and dependent on what you're hoping to achieve. If you're hoping to achieve very quick queries that's one thing. If you're hoping to achieve high programmer productivity--that's a different goal again and possibly conflicts with quick queries.
Choice depends on required performance.
The best database is normalized database. But there could be performance issues in normalized database then you have to denormalize it.
Principle "Normalize first, denormalize for performance" works well.
It depends on the datamodel and the use case. If you ever need to report on a query that wants data out of the "models" then the former is preferable because otherwise (with the latter) you'd have to change the query (to include the new table) every time you added a new model.
Oh and by "former" we mean this option:
table_model
* type {cadillac, saturn, chevrolet}
#mson has asked the question "What do you do when a question is not satisfactorily answered on SO?", which is a direct reference to the existing answers to this question.
I contributed the following answer to that discussion, primarily critiquing the way the question was asked.
Quote (verbatim):
I looked at the original question yesterday, and decided not to contribute an answer.
One problem was the use of the term 'model' as in 'GM models' - which cited 'Chevrolet, Saturn, Cadillac' as 'models'. To my understanding, these are not models at all; they are 'brands', though there might also be an industry-insider term for them that I'm not familiar with, such as 'division'. A model would be a 'Saturn Vue' or 'Chevrolet Impala' or 'Cadillac Escalade'. Indeed, there could well be models at a more detailed level than that - different variants of the Saturn Vue, for example.
So, I didn't think that the starting point was well framed. I didn't critique it; it wasn't quite compelling enough, and there were answers coming in, so I let other people try it.
The next problem is that it is not clear what your DBMS is going to be storing as data. If you're storing a million records per 'model' ('brand'), then what sorts of data are you dealing with? Lurking in the background is a different scenario - the real scenario - and your question has used an analogy that failed to be sufficiently realistic. That means that the 'it depends' parts of the answer are far more voluminous than the 'this is how to do it' ones. There is just woefully too little background information on the data to be modelled to allow us to guess what might be best.
Ultimately, it will depend on what uses people have for the data. If the information is going to go flying off in all different directions (different data structures in different brands; different data structures at the car model levels; different structures for the different dealerships - the Chevrolet dealers are handled differently from the Saturn dealers and the Cadillac dealers), then the integrated structure provides limited benefit. If everything is the same all the way down, then the integrated structure provides a lot of benefit.
Are there legal reasons (or benefits) to segregating the data? To what extent are the different brands separate legal entities where shared records could be a liability? Are there privacy issues, such that it will be easier to control access to the data if the data for the separate brands is stored separately?
Without a lot more detail about the scenario being modelled, no-one can give a reliable general answer - at least, not more than the top-voted one already gives (or doesn't give).
Data modelling is not easy.
Data modelling without sufficient information is impossible to do reliably.
I have copied the material here since it is more directly relevant. I do think that to answer this question satisfactorily, a lot more context should be given. And it is possible that there needs to be enough extra context to make SO the wrong place to ask it. SO has its limitations, and one of those is that it cannot deal with questions which require long explanations.
From the SO FAQs page:
What kind of questions can I ask here?
Programming questions, of course! As long as your question is:
detailed and specific
written clearly and simply
of interest to at least one other programmer somewhere
...
What kind of questions should I not ask here?
Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion. This is a place for questions that can be answered!
This question is, IMO, close to the 'require extended discussion' limit.
Related
I've worked on big projects before, but I'm trying to improve my best practices, and one thing that I'm stuck on is not to create many models.
This might seem a little bit confusing, so let me put an example:
Let's suppose I have a Post model, and an Answer model, the answer one relates to the Post in a One-Many relationship.
Then, I want to add a Comment model, both to Post and Answer.
I could add two Foreign Key nullable columns on the Comment, to show which model it belongs.
But I could also create PostComment and AnswerComment models, removing the nullable column, but creating more kind of boilerplate.
Which practice is the best?
It depends.
I'm assuming the design is primarily to support a transactional application (OLTP), and not reporting (OLAP). I'm also assuming that model = table.
There's nothing inherently wrong with having multiple tables, as long as the design makes sense (can be easily supported), can be extended / modified with relative ease (maintained), does not lead to poorly performing queries (e.g. if there's a mismatch between the database schema and how calling applications want to consume its data.
If data is the same, it should probably go into the same table; e.g. if you're dealing with birds then don't have tblHawk, tblParrot, etc - but you you had all animals then sure you'd probably want to seperate them out somehow - tblBird, tblFish, tblMammal, etc - because the data would be too different & too hard to model effectively.
You have answers and posts - I assume these are different enough that having separate tables makes sense? If so, what about comments to them? If comments are essentially the same regardless of post/answer then one table, as you described, is probably a good idea.
Also consider the application: if you have separate post/answer comment tables there's more code to be developed and maintained - but it's separate, so more code but possibly more flexible with less complexity. Using one table will have the opposite affect. Neither is wrong, but one approach is probably better than the other depending on your situation.
I am not sure if there is a term to describe this, but I have observed that content management systems store all kinds of data in a single table with their bare minimum properties while the meta data is stored in another table in form of key value pairs.
for eg. everything (blog posts, pages, images, events etc) is stored in one table and considered as a post.
I understand that this allows for abstraction and easy extensibility
we are considering designing our new project this way. It is not exactly a CMS but we plan to keep adding modules to it in stages. Lets say initially there will be only posts and images on which comments can be posted. Later on we might add videos which will also have the commenting feature.
what are the drawbacks of this approach ? and will it work for a requirement like ours ?
Thanks
The drawback is that the main table will get zillions of reads (and plenty of writes, too).
This means that there will be lots of lock contentions, heavy reindexing etc.
In order to mitigate this a bit you may consider splitting the "main table" in a series of not-so-main-tables.
Say, you will have one main table for "Posts" (possibly refined through metadata or subtables for specific types of posts, like Sticky, Announcement, Shoutbox, Private...)
One main table for Images (possibly refined for gifs, jpegs etc.)
One main table for Videos...
If this is a custom application (and not intended to be something that has to be "infinitely tweakable" like a CMS or a Portal framework) I think this kind of split is acceptable, and may provide some better performance (if you expect to have large amounts of data).
Regarding your "examples" comment... first of all, if you keep comments again in a single gigantic table you may have similar problems as if you kept all type of items in it.
Assuming this is not a problem, you can obviously put a sort of reference key (you can't use the normal foreign keys, of course) that links comments to their original item.
This works fine when you go from item to comments, a bit less when you have to move from comments to the originating item. So the tradeoff is about what kind of operations would be more frequent for your problem.
Simplicity and extensibility are indeed often attractive aspects of attribute-value and (as you say) "single table of things" approaches.
There's no 100% right answer here -- depending on your performance/throughput goals and extensibility needs, this approach might work for you too.
In most cases, however, where you know what kinds of data you will store, it's usually in your interest to model distinct entities into their own tables and relate the data accordingly. RDBMSes have been architected and refined over decades to cater to this use case and to simply use tables as generic dumping grounds doesn't typically buy you any distinct advantages, except the act of delaying the inevitable need to model your data properly. Furthermore, when you boil everything into one table, you then force users outside your app itself (if you have any, for example report writers) to have to struggle with your "model within a model", which can just make folks frustrated when they write queries, etc. And you will sink to your lowest common denominator -- if you want to optimize queries about type X and you have types Y and Z in that same table in droves, they will impact performance on querying X.
Again, to be clear, there is distinct benefit to the "all things in one table" name/value style metadata approaches. I have used them myself and turned against modeling for similar reasons. However, my advice is to limit yourself to times when you really need to do that (i.e., you need to implement something before you can correctly model the space of things you will need). Most typically, I find myself doing that when I'm prototyping complex systems and I need to get something going sooner than later.
Say I had three tables: Accommodation, Train Stations and Airports. Would I have address columns in each table or an address table that is referenced by the other tables? Is there such a thing as over-normalization?
Database Normalization is all about constructing relations (tables) that maintain certain functional
dependencies among the facts (columns) within the relation (table) and among the various relations (tables)
making up the schema (database). Bit of a mouth-full, but that is what it is all about.
A Simple Guide to Five Normal Forms in Relational Database Theory
is the classic reference for normal forms. This paper defines in simple terms what the essence of each normal form is
and its significance with respect to database table design. This is a very good "touch-stone" reference.
To answer your specific question properly requires additional information. Some critical questions you have to ask
are:
Is an Address a simple fact (e.g. blob of text) or a composite fact (e.g.
composed of multiple attributes: Address line, City Name, Postal Code etc.)
What are the other "facts" relating to "Accommodation",
"Airport" and "Train Station"?
What sets of "facts" uniquely and minimally identify an "Airport", an "Accommodation"
and a "Train Station" (these facts are typically called a key or candidate key)?
What functional dependencies exist among Address facts and the facts
composing each relations key?
All this to say, the answer to your question is not as straight forward as one might hope for!
Is there such a thing as "over normalization"? Maybe. This depends on whether the
functional dependencies you have identified and used to build your tables are
of significance to your application domain.
For example, suppose it was determined that an address
was composed of multiple attributes; one of which is postal code. Technically a postal
code is a composite item too (at least Canadian Postal Codes are). Further normalizing your
database to recognize these facts would probably be an over-normalization. This is because
the components of a postal code are irrelevant to your application and therefore factoring
them into the database design would be an over-normalization.
For addresses, I would almost always create a separate address table. Not only for normalization but also for consistency in fields stored.
As for such a thing as over-normalization, absolutely there is! It's hard to give you guidance on what is and isn't over-normalization as I think it mostly comes from experience. However, follow the books on each level of normalization and then once it starts to get difficult to see where things are you've probably gone too far.
Look at all the sample/example databases you can as well. They will give you a good indication on when you should be splitting out data and when you shouldn't.
Also, be well aware of the type and amount of data you're storing, along with the speed of access, etc. A lot of modern web software is going fully de-normalized for many performance and scalability reason. It's worth looking into those for reason why and when you should and shouldn't de-normalize.
Would I have address columns in each table or an address table that is referenced by the other tables?
Can airports, train stations and accommodation each have a different address format?
A single ADDRESS table minimizes the work necessary dealing with addresses - suite, RR, postal/zip code, state/province...
Is there such a thing as over-normalization?
There are different levels of normalization. I've only encountered what I'd consider poor design rather than normalization.
Personally I'd go for another table.
I think it makes the design cleaner, makes reporting on addresses much simpler and will make any changes you need to make to the address schema easier.
If you need to have it denormalized later on you can always create two views that contain the Train station and airport information along with any address information you need.
This isn't really what I understand by normalisation. You don't seem to be talking about removing redundancy, just how to partition the storage or data model. I'm assuming that the example of addresses for Accommodation, Train Stations and Airports will all be disjoint?
As far as I know it would only be normalisation if you started thinking along the lines. Postcode is functionally dependent upon street address so should be factored out into its own table.
In which case this could be ever desirable or undesirable dependent upon context. Perhaps desirable if you administer the records and can ensure correctness, and less desirable if users can update their own records.
A related question is Is normalizing a person’s name going too far?
If you have a project/piece of functionality that is very performance sensitive, it may be smart to denormalize the database in some cases. However, this can lead to maintenance issues for various reasons. You may instead want to duplicate the data with cache tables but there are drawbacks to this as well. It's really a case by case basis but in normal practice, database normalization is a good thing. 99% of the non-normalized databases I've seen are not by design, but rather by a misunderstanding/mistake by the developer.
Would I have address columns in each table or an address table that is referenced by the other tables?
As others have alluded to, this is not really a question of normalization because you're not attempting to reduce redundancy or organize dependencies. Either way is perfectly acceptable. Moving the addresses to a separate table might make sense if you are going to have centralized validation or business logic specific to addresses.
Is there such a thing as over-normalization?
Yes. As has been mentioned, in large systems (lots of data, lots of transactions, or both) you can normalize to the point where performance becomes an issue. This is why lots of systems use denormalized database for reporting and querying.
In addition to performance though, there is also the issue of how easy the data is to query. In systems where there will be a lot of end-user querying of the data (can be dangerous!), a denormalized structure is easier for most non-technical or non-database people to understand.
Like most things we deal with, it's a trade-off between understanding, performance, and future maintainability and there is rarely a clear-cut answer to where you draw the line in any given system.
With experience, you will learn where the line is best drawn for the systems you write.
With that said, my preference is to err on the side of more vs less normalization.
If you are using Oracle 9i, you could store address objects in your tables. That would remove the (justified) concerns about address formats.
I agree with S.Lott, and would like to add:
A good answer depends on what you know already. The basic "math" of relational database theory, however, defines very well-defined, distinct levels of normalization. You cannot normalize anymore when you've reached the ultimate normal form.
Depending on what you want to model with your three entities, and how you identify them, you can come up with very different conceptual data models, all of which can be represented in a mix of normal forms -- or unnormalized at all (like 1 table for all data with descriptors and NULL holes all over the place...).
Consider you normalize your three entities to the ultimate normal form. I can now introduce a new requirement, or use case, or extension, which gives an upto-now descriptive attribute a somehow ordered, or referencing, or structured nature if you look at its content. Then, the model should represent this behavior, and what used to be an attribute perhaps will better be a separate entity referenced by other entities.
Over-normalization? Only in the sense that can you normalize a given model so it gets inefficient to store, or process, on a given DB platform. Depending on what can be handled efficiently there, you might want to de-normalize certain aspects, trading off redundancy for speed (data warehouse dbs do this all the time), and insight, or vice versa.
All (working) db designs I've seen so far either have a rather normalized conceptual data model, with quite some denormalization done at the logical and/or physical data model level (speaking in Sybase PowerDesigner terms) to make the model "manageable" -- either that, or they were not working, i.e. failed because the maintenance problems became kingsize real quick.
When you say "address", I presume you mean a complete address, like street, city, state/province, maybe country, and zip/postal code. That's 4 or 5 fields, maybe more if you allow for "address line 1" and "address line 2", care-of's, etc. That should definately be in a separate table, with an "addressid" to link to the Station, etc tables. Otherwise, you are creating 3 separate copies of the same set of field definitions. That's bad news because it creates extra effort to keep them consistent. Like, what if initially you are only dealing with U.S. addresses (I'm an American so I'll assume U.S.), but later you find you also need to allow for Canadians. You'll need to expand the size of the postal code field and add a country code. If there's a common table, then you only have to do this once. If there isn't, then you have to do this three times. And it's likely that the "three times" is not just changing the database schema, but changing every place in your programs that processes an address.
One of the benefits of normalization is to minimize the impact of changes.
There are times when you want to denormalize to make queries more efficient. But this should be done very cautiously, only after you have good reason to believe that the fully normalized model creates serious inefficiency problems. In my humble experience, most programmers are far to quick to denormalize, usually with a quick "oh, breaking that out into a separate table is too much trouble".
I think in this situation it is OK to have address columns in each table. You'll hardly have an address which will be used more than two times. Most of the adresses will be used just one per entity.
But what could be in an extra table are names of streets, cities, countries...
And most important every train station, accomodoation and airport will probably have just one address so it's an n:1 relation.
I can only add one more constructive note to the answers already posted here. However you choose to normalize your database, that very process becomes almost trivial when the addresses are standardized (look the same). This is because as you endeavor to prevent duplicates, all the addresses that are actually the same do look the same.
Now, standardizing addresses is not trivial. There are CASS services which do this for you (for US addresses) which have been certified by the USPS. I actually work for SmartyStreets where this is our expertise, so I'd suggest you start your search there. You can either perform batch processing or use the API to standardize the addresses as you receive them.
Without something like this, your database may be normalized, but duplicate address data (whether correct or incomplete and invalid, etc) will still seep in because of the many, many forms they can take. If you have any further questions about this, I'll personally assisty you.
2 tables:
- views
- downloads
Identical structure:
item_id, user_id, time
Should I be worried?
I don't think that there is a problem, per se.
When designing a DB there are lots of different parameters, and some (e.g.: performance) may take precedence.
Case in point: even if the structures (and I suppose indexing) are identical, maybe "views" has more records and will be accessed more often.
This alone could be a good reason not to burden it with records from the downloads.
Also, the fact that they are indentical now does not mean they will be in the future: views and downloads are different, after all, so sooner or later one or both could grow an extra field or two.
These tables are the same NOW but may schema change in the future. If they represent 2 different concepts it is good to keep them separate. What if you wanted to have a foreign key from another table to the downloads table but not the views table, if they were that same table you could not do this.
I think the answer has to be "it depends". As someone else pointed out, if the schema of one or both tables is likely to evolve then no. I can think of other cases well (simplifying the security model by allow apps/users access to one or the other).
Having said this, I work with a legacy DB where this is a problem. We have multiple identical tables for customer invoices. Data is actually moved between then at different stages in the processing life-cycle. It makes for a complicated mess when trying to access data. It would have been easily solved by a state flag in the original schema, but we now have 20+ years of code written against the multi-table version.
Short answer: depends on why they are the same schema :).
From a E/R modelling point of view I don't see a problem with that, as long as they represent two semantically different entities.
From an implementation point of view, it really depends on how you plan to query that data:
If you plan to query those tables independently from each other, keeping them separate is a good choice
If you plan to query those tables together (maybe with a UNION of a JOIN operation) you should consider storing them in a single table with a discriminator column to distinguish their type
When considering whether to consolidate them into a single table you should also take into account other factors like:
The amount of data stored in each table
The rate at which data grows in each table
The ratio of read/write operations executed on each table
Chris Date and Dave McGoveran formalised the "Principle of Orthogonal Design". Roughly speaking it means that in database design you should avoid the possibility of allowing the same tuple in two different relvars. The aim being to avoid certain types of redundancy and ambiguity that could result.
Arguably it isn't always totally practical to do that and it isn't necessarily clear cut exactly when the principle is being broken. However, I do think it's a good guiding rule, if only because it avoids the problem of duplicate logic in data access code or constraints, i.e. it's a good DRY principle. Avoid having tables with potentially overlapping meanings unless there is some database constraint that prevents duplication between them.
It depends on the context - what is a View and what is a Download? Does a Download imply a View (how else would it be downloaded)?
It's possible that you have well-defined, separate concepts there - but it is a smell I'd want to investigate further. It seems likely that a View and a Download are related somehow, but your model doesn't show anything.
Are you saying that both tables have an 'item_id' Primary Key? In this case, the fields have the same name, but do not have the same meaning. One is a 'view_id', and the other one is a 'download_id'. You should rename your fields consequently to avoid this kind of misunderstanding.
Two of my colleagues and I are building a system to do all sorts of hydrology and related stuff. It has a lot of requirements and have a good number of tables.
We are handling all sorts of sampling that it is done within this scope (hydrology) and we are trying to figure out a way to do it in a less painful way.
Sometimes we need to get all that sampling together and I'm starting to think we are over-complicating our database design.
How or when do you know that you are over-designing a database? Of course we are considering a lot of Normal Form Rules and other good practices, but when it is OK to drop one of those rules, e.g. not normalizing something?
What are your opinions on this?
Short Answer
You can't, worry about something else.
Long Answer
This sounds like yet another form of premature optimization. (YAFPO?)
You should design your schema using third normal form (3NF). Once designed, you should populate your tables with data and begin profiling.
If a particular query is deemed too costly then you should look into denormalization on a case by case basis.
Technical Answer (for the nitpickers who will inevitably object to: "you can't")
You will reach a limit at some point based on your choice of RDBMS and/or storage engine. Likely ceilings will be memory consumption or open file descriptors.
"When do you have too many tables?"
At the level of logical design, the correct answer is "never".
At the level of physical design (insofar as "having a table" really refers to some concept that pertains to the physical design), the correct answer is "if and when the queries that you need to do, given the restrictions of the DBMS you are using, are causing performance to be unacceptably low.".
We have a system with literally hundreds of tables - its no big deal, its just that a lot of different things are stored in the database.
We have a ton of tables in our system as well. What we did was normalize the database to a good point, then created a few views that encompass the most common table usage needs of our system. Something like that could help you as well.