For a database assignment I have to model a system for a school. Part of the requirements is to model information for staff, students and parents.
In the UML class diagram I have modelled this as those three classes being subtypes of a person type. This is because they will all require information on, among other things, address data.
My question is: how do I model this in the database (mysql)?
Thoughts so far are as follows:
Create a monolithic person table that contains all the information for each type and will have lots of null values depending on what type is being stored. (I doubt this would go down well with the lecturer unless I argued the case very convincingly).
A person table with three foreign keys which reference the subtypes but two of which will be null - in fact I'm not even sure if that makes sense or is possible?
According to this wikipage about django it's possible to implement the primary key on the subtypes as follows:
"id" integer NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY REFERENCES "supertype" ("id")
Something else I've not thought of...
So for those who have modelled inheritance in a database before; how did you do it? What method do you recommend and why?
Links to articles/blog posts or previous questions are more than welcome.
Thanks for your time!
UPDATE
Alright thanks for the answers everyone. I already had a separate address table so that's not an issue.
Cheers,
Adam
4 tables staff, students, parents and person for the generic stuff.
Staff, students and parents have forign keys that each refer back to Person (not the other way around).
Person has field that identifies what the subclass of this person is (i.e. staff, student or parent).
EDIT:
As pointed out by HLGM, addresses should exist in a seperate table, as any person may have multiple addresses. (However - I'm about to disagree with myself - you may wish to deliberately constrain addresses to one per person, limiting the choices for mailing lists etc).
Well I think all approaches are valid and any lecturer who marks down for shoving it in one table (unless the requirements are specific to say you shouldn't) is removing a viable strategy due to their own personal opinion.
I highly recommend that you check out the documentation on NHibernate as this provides different approaches for performing the above. Which I will now attempt to poorly parrot.
Your options:
1) One table with all the data that has a "delimiter" column. This column states what kind of person the person is. This is viable in simple scenarios and (seriously) high performance where the joins will hurt too much
2) Table per class which will lead to duplication of columns but will avoid joins again, so its simple and a lil faster (although only a lil and indexing mitigates this in most scenarios).
3) "Proper" inheritence. The normalised version. You are almost there but your key is in the wrong place IMO. Your Employee table should contain a PersonId so you can then do:
select employee.id, person.name from employee inner join person on employee.personId = person.personId
To get all the names of employees where name is only specified on the person table.
I would go for #3.
Your goal is to impress a lecturer, not a PM or customer. Academics tend to dislike nulls and might (subconciously) penalise you for using the other methods (which rely on nulls.)
And you don't necessarily need that django extension (PRIMARY KEY ... REFERENCES ...) You could use an ordinary FOREIGN KEY for that.
"So for those who have modelled inheritance in a database before; how did you do it? What method do you recommend and why?
"
Methods 1 and 3 are good. The differences are mostly in what your use cases are.
1) adaptability -- which is easier to change? Several separate tables with FK relations to the parent table.
2) performance -- which requires fewer joins? One single table.
Rats. No design accomplishes both.
Also, there's a third design in addition to your mono-table and FK-to-parent.
Three separate tables with some common columns (usually copy-and-paste of the superclass columns among all subclass tables). This is very flexible and easy to work with. But, it requires a union of the three tables to assemble an overall list.
OO databases go through the same stuff and come up with pretty much the same options.
If the point is to model subclasses in a database, you probably are already thinking along the lines of the solutions I've seen in real OO databases (leaving fields empty).
If not, you might think about creating a system that doesn't use inheritance in this way.
Inheritance should always be used quite sparingly, and this is probably a pretty bad case for it.
A good guideline is to never use inheritance unless you actually have code that does different things to the field of a "Parent" class than to the same field in a "Child" class. If business code in your class doesn't specifically refer to a field, that field absolutely shouldn't cause inheritance.
But again, if you are in school, that may not match what they are trying to teach...
The "correct" answer for the purposes of an assignment is probably #3 :
Person
PersonId Name Address1 Address2 City Country
Student
PersonId StudentId GPA Year ..
Staff
PersonId StaffId Salary ..
Parent
PersonId ParentId ParentType EmergencyContactNumber ..
Where PersonId is always the primary key, and also a foreign key in the last three tables.
I like this approach because it makes it easy to represent the same person having more than one role. A teacher could very well also be a parent, for example.
I suggest five tables
Person
Student
Staff
Parent
Address
WHy - because people can have multiple addesses and people can also have multiple roles and the information you want for staff is different than the information you need to store for parent or student.
Further you may want to store name as last_name, Middle_name, first_name, Name_suffix (like jr.) instead of as just name. Belive me you willwant to be able to search on last_name! Name is not unique, so you will need to make sure you have a unique surrogate primary key.
Please read up about normalization before trying to design a database. Here is a source to start with:
http://www.deeptraining.com/litwin/dbdesign/FundamentalsOfRelationalDatabaseDesign.aspx
Super type Person should be created like this:
CREATE TABLE Person(PersonID int primary key, Name varchar ... etc ...)
All Sub types should be created like this:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS Staffs(StaffId INT NOT NULL ,
PRIMARY KEY (StaffId) ,
CONSTRAINT FK_StaffId FOREIGN KEY (StaffId) REFERENCES Person(PersonId)
)
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS Students(StudentId INT NOT NULL ,
PRIMARY KEY (StudentId) ,
CONSTRAINT FK_StudentId FOREIGN KEY (StudentId) REFERENCES Person(PersonId)
)
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS Parents(PersonID INT NOT NULL ,
PRIMARY KEY (PersonID ) ,
CONSTRAINT FK_PersonID FOREIGN KEY (PersonID ) REFERENCES Person(PersonId)
)
Foreign key in subtypes staffs,students,parents adds two conditions:
Person row cannot be deleted unless corresponding subtype row will
not be deleted. For e.g. if there is one student entry in students
table referring to Person table, without deleting student entry
person entry cannot be deleted, which is very important. If Student
object is created then without deleting Student object we cannot
delete base Person object.
All base types have foreign key "not null" to make sure each base
type will have base type existing always. For e.g. If you create
Student object you must create Person object first.
Related
I'm developing a simple babysitter application that has 2 types of users: a 'Parent' and the 'Babysitter'. I'm using postgresql as my database but I'm having trouble working out my database design.
The 'Parent' and the 'Babysitter' entities have attributes that can be generalized, for example: username, password, email, ... Those attributes could be
placed into a parent entity called 'User'. They both also have their own attributes, for example: Babysitter -> age.
In terms of OOP things are very clear for me, just extend the user class and you are good to go but in DB design things are differently.
Before posting this question I roamed around the internet for a good week looking for insight into this 'issue'. I did find a lot of information but
it seemed to me that there was a lot a disagreement. Here are some of the posts I've read:
How do you effectively model inheritance in a database?: Table-Per-Type (TPT), Table-Per-Hierarchy (TPH) and Table-Per-Concrete (TPC) VS 'Forcing the RDb into a class-based requirements is simply incorrect.'
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/75792/multiple-user-types-db-design-advice:
Table: `users`; contains all similar fields as well as a `user_type_id` column (a foreign key on `id` in `user_types`
Table: `user_types`; contains an `id` and a `type` (Student, Instructor, etc.)
Table: `students`; contains fields only related to students as well as a `user_id` column (a foreign key of `id` on `users`)
Table: `instructors`; contains fields only related to instructors as well as a `user_id` column (a foreign key of `id` on `users`)
etc. for all `user_types`
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/36573/how-to-model-inheritance-of-two-tables-mysql/36577#36577
When to use inherited tables in PostgreSQL?: Inheritance in postgresql does not work as expected for me and a bunch of other users as the original poster points out.
I am really confused about which approach I should take. Class-table-inheritance (https://stackoverflow.com/tags/class-table-inheritance/info) seems like the most correct in
my OOP mindset but I would very much appreciate and updated DB minded opinion.
The way that I think of inheritance in the database world is "can only be one kind of." No other relational modeling technique works for that specific case; even with check constraints, with a strict relational model, you have the problem of putting the wrong "kind of" person into the wrong table. So, in your example, a user can be a parent or a babysitter, but not both. If a user can be more than one kind-of user, then inheritance is not the best tool to use.
The instructor/student relationship really only works well in the case where students cannot be instructors or vice-versa. If you have a TA, for example, it's better to model that using a strict relational design.
So, back to the parent-babysitter, your table design might look like this:
CREATE TABLE user (
id SERIAL,
full_name TEXT,
email TEXT,
phone_number TEXT
);
CREATE TABLE parent (
preferred_payment_method TEXT,
alternate_contact_info TEXT,
PRIMARY KEY(id)
) INHERITS(user);
CREATE TABLE babysitter (
age INT,
min_child_age INT,
preferred_payment_method TEXT,
PRIMARY KEY(id)
) INHERITS(user);
CREATE TABLE parent_babysitter (
parent_id INT REFERENCES parent(id),
babysitter_id INT REFERENCES babysitter(id),
PRIMARY KEY(parent_id, babysitter_id)
);
This model allows users to be "only one kind of" user - a parent or a babysitter. Notice how the primary key definitions are left to the child tables. In this model, you can have duplicated ID's between parent and babysitter, though this may not be a problem depending on how you write your code. (Note: Postgres is the only ORDBMS I know of with this restriction - Informix and Oracle, for example, have inherited keys on inherited tables)
Also see how we mixed the relational model in - we have a many-to-many relationship between parents and babysitters. That way we keep the entities separated, but we can still model a relationship without weird self-referencing keys.
All the options can be roughly represented by following cases:
base table + table for each class (class-table inheritance, Table-Per-Type, suggestions from the dba.stackexchange)
single table inheritance (Table-Per-Hierarchy) - just put everything into the single table
create independent tables for each class (Table-Per-Concrete)
I usually prefer option (1), because (2) and (3) are not completely correct in terms of DB design.
With (2) you will have unused columns for some rows (like "age" will be empty for Parent). And with (3) you may have duplicated data.
But you also need to think in terms of data access. With option (1) you will have the data spread over few tables, so to get Parent, you will need to use join operations to select data from both User and Parent tables.
I think that's the reason why options (2) and (3) exist - they are easier to use in terms of SQL queries (no joins are needed, you just select the data you need from one table).
I edited and remade the ERD. I have a few more questions.
I included participation constraints(between trainee and tutor), cardinality constraints(M means many), weak entities (double line rectangles), weak relationships(double line diamonds), composed attributes, derived attributes (white space with lines circle), and primary keys.
Questions:
Apparently to reduce redundant attributes I should only keep primary keys and descriptive attributes and the other attributes I will remove for simplicity reasons. Which attributes would be redundant in this case? I am thinking start_date, end_date, phone number, and address but that depends on the entity set right? For example the attribute address would be removed from Trainee because we don't really need it?
For the part: "For each trainee we like to store (if any) also previous companies (employers) where they worked, periods of employment: start date and end date."
Isn't "periods of employment: start date, end date" a composed attribute? because the dates are shown with the symbol ":" Also I believe I didn't make an attribute for "where they worked" which is location?
Also how is it possible to show previous companies (employers) when we already have an attribute employers and different start date? Because if you look at the Question Information it states start_date for employer twice and the second time it says start_date and end_date.
I labeled many attributes as primary keys but how am I able to distinguish from derived attribute, primary key, and which attribute would be redundant?
Is there a multivalued attribute in this ERD? Would salary and job held be a multivalued attribute because a employer has many salaries and jobs.
I believe I did the participation constraints (there is one) and cardinality constraints correctly. But there are sentences where for example "An instructor teaches at least a course. Each course is taught by only one instructor"; how can I write the cardinality constraint for this when I don't have a relationship between course and instructor?
Do my relationship names make sense because all I see is "has" maybe I am not correctly naming the actions of the relationships? Also I believe schedules depend on the actual entity so they are weak entities.... so does that make course entity set also a weak entity (I did not label it as weak here)?
For the company address I put a composed attribute, street num, street address, city... would that be correct? Also would street num and street address be primary keys?
Also I added the final mark attribute to courses and course_schedule is this in the right entity set? The statement for this attribute is "Each trainee identified by: unique code, social security number, name, address, a unique telephone number, the courses attended and the final mark for each course."
For this part: "We store in the database all classrooms available on the site" do i make a composed attribute that contains site information?
Question Information:
A trainee may be self-employed or employee in a company
Each trainee identified by:
unique code, social security number, name, address, a unique
telephone number, the courses attended and the final mark for each course.
If the trainee is an employee in a company: store the current company (employer), start date.
For each trainee we like to store (if any) also previous companies (employers) where they worked, periods of employment: start date and end date.
If a trainee is self-employed: store the area of expertise, and title.
For a trainee that works for a company: we store the salary and job
For each company (employer): name (unique), the address, a unique telephone number.
We store in the database all known companies in the
city.
We need also to represent the courses that each trainee is attending.
Each course has a unique code and a title.
For each course we have to store: the classrooms, dates, and times (start time, and duration in minutes) the course is held.
A classroom is characterized by a building name and a room number and the maximum places’ number.
A course is given in at least a classroom, and may be scheduled in many classrooms.
We store in the database all classrooms
available on the site.
We store in the database all courses given at least once in the company.
For each instructor we will store: the social security number, name, and birth date.
An instructor teaches at least a course.
Each course is taught by only one instructor.
All the instructors’ telephone numbers must also be stored (each instructor has at least a telephone number).
A trainee can be a tutor for one or many trainees for a specific
period of time (start date and end date).
For a trainee it is not mandatory to be a tutor, but it is mandatory to have a tutor
The attribute ‘Code’ will be your PK because it’s only use seems to be that of a Unique Identifier.
The relationship ‘is’ will work but having a reference to two tables like that can get messy. Also you have the reference to "Employers" in the Trainee table which is not good practice. They should really be combined. See my helpful hints section to see how to clean that up.
Company looks like the complete table of Companies in the area as your details suggest. This would mean table is fairly static and used as a reference in your other tables. This means that the attribute ‘employer’ in Employed would simply be a Foreign Key reference to the PK of a specific company in Company. You should draw a relationship between those two.
It seems as though when an employee is ‘employed’ they are either an Employee of a company or self-employed.
The address field in Company will be a unique address your current city, yes, as the question states the table is a complete list of companies in the city. However because this is a unique attribute you must have specifics like street address because simply adding the city name will mean all companies will have the same address which is forbidden in an unique field.
Some other helpful hints:
Stay away from adding fields with plurals on them to your diagram. When you have a plural field it often means you need a separate table with a Foreign Key reference to that table. For example in your Table Trainee, you have ‘Employers’. That should be a Employer table with a foreign key reference to the Trainee Code attribute. In the Employer Table you can combine the Self-employed and Employed tables so that there is a single reference from Trainee to Employer.
ERD Link http://www.imagesup.net/?di=1014217878605. Here's a quick ERD I created for you. Note the use of linker tables to prevent Many to Many relationships in the table. It's important to note there are several ways to solve this schema problem but this is just as I saw your problem laid out. The design is intended to help with normalization of the db. That is prevent redundant data in the DB. Hope this helps. Let me know if you need more clarification on the design I provided. It should be fairly self explanatory when comparing your design parameters to it.
Follow Up Questions:
If you are looking to reduce attributes that might be arbitrary perhaps phone_number and address may be ones to eliminate, but start and end dates are good for sorting and archival reasons when determining whether an entry is current or a past record.
Yes, periods_of_employment does not need to be stored as you can derive that information with start and end dates. Where they worked I believe is just meant to say previous employers, so no location but instead it’s meant that you should be able to get a list all the employers the trainee has had. You can get that with the current schema if you query the employer table for all records where trainee code equals requested trainee and sort by start date. The reason it states start_date twice is to let you know that for all ‘previous’ employers the record will have a start and end date. Hence the previous. However, for current employers the employment hasn't ended which means there will be no end_date so it will null. That’s what the problem was stating in my opinion.
To keep it simple PK’s are unique values used to reference a record within another table. Redundant values are values that you essentially don’t need in a table because the same value can be derived by querying another table. In this case most of your attributes are fine except for Final_Mark in the Course table. This is redundant because Course_Schedule will store the Final_Mark that was received. The Course table is meant to simply hold a list of all potential courses to be referenced by Course_Schedule.
There is no multivalued attributes in this design because that is bad practice Job and salary are singular and if and job or salary changes you would add a new record to the employer table not add to that column. Multivalued attributes make querying a db difficult and I would advise against it. That’s why I mentioned earlier to abstract all attributes with plurals into their own tables and use a foreign key reference.
You essentially do have that written here because Course_Schedule is a linker table meaning that it is meant to simplify relationships between tables so you don’t have many to many relationships.
All your relationships look right to me. Also since the schedules are linker tables and cannot exist without the supporting tables you could consider them weak entities. Course in this schema is a defined list of all courses available so can be independent of any other table. This by definition is not a weak entity. When creating this db you’d probably fill in the course table and it probably wouldn’t change after that, except rarely when adding or removing an available course option.
Yes, you can make address a composite attribute, and that would be right in your diagram. To be clear with your use of Primary key, just because an attribute is unique doesn’t make it a primary key. A table can have one and only one primary key so you must pick a column that you are certain will not be repeated. In this example you may think street number might be unique but what if one company leaves an address and another company moves into that spot. That would break that tables primary key. Typically a company name is licensed in a city or state so cannot be repeated. That would be a better choice for your primary key. You can also make composite primary keys, but that is a more advanced topic that I would recommend reading about at a later date.
Take final_mark out of courses. That’s table will contain rows of only courses, those courses won’t be linked to any trainee except by course_schedule table. The Final_Mark should only be in that table. If you add final_mark to Course table then, if you have 10 trainees in a course, You’d have 10 duplicate rows in the course table with only differing final_marks. Instead only hold the course_code and title that way you can assign different instructors, trainees and classrooms using the linker tables.
No composite attribute is needed using this schema. You have a Classroom table that will hold all available classrooms and their relevant information. You then use the Classroom_Schedule linker table to assign a given Classroom to a Course_Schedule. No attributes of Classroom can be broken down to simpler attributes.
I have been asked to add a new address book table to our database (SQL Server 2012).
To simplify the related part of the database, there are three tables each linked to each other in a one to many fashion: Company (has many) Products (has many) Projects and the idea is that one or many addresses will be able to exist at any one of these levels. The thinking is that in the front-end system, a user will be able to view and select specific addresses for the project they specify and more generic addresses relating to its parent product and company.
The issue now if how best to model this in the database.
I have thought of two possible ideas so far so wonder if anyone has had a similar type of relationship to model themselves and how they implemented it?
Idea one:
The new address table will additionally contain three fields: companyID, productID and projectID. These fields will be related to the relevant tables and be nullable to represent company and product level addresses. e.g. companyID 2, productID 1, projectID NULL is a product level address.
My issue with this is that I am storing the relationship information in the table so if a project is ever changed to be related to a different product, the data in this table will be incorrect. I could potentially NULL all but the level I am interested in but this will make getting parent addresses a little harder to get
Idea two:
On the address table have a typeID and a genericID. genericID could contain the IDs from the Company, Product and Project tables with the typeID determining which table it came from. I am a little stuck how to set up the necessary constraints to do this though and wonder if this is going to get tricky to deal with in the future
Many thanks,
I will suggest using Idea one and preventing Idea two.
Second Idea is called Polymorphic Association anti pattern
Objective: Reference Multiple Parents
Resulting side effect: Using dual-purpose foreign key will violating first normal form (atomic issue), loosing referential integrity
Solution: Simplify the Relationship
The simplification of the relationship could be obtained in two ways:
Having multiple null-able forging keys (idea number 1): That will be
simple and applicable if the tables(product, project,...) that using
the relation are limited. (think about when they grow up to more)
Another more generic solution will be using inheritance. Defining a
new entity as the base table for (product, project,...) to satisfy
Addressable. May naming it organization-unit be more rational. Primary key of this organization_unit table will be the primary key of (product, project,...). Other collections like Address, Image, Contract ... tables will have a relation to this base table.
It sounds like you could use Junction tables http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junction_table.
They will give you the flexibility you need to maintain your foreign key restraints, as well as share addresses between levels or entities if that is desired.
One for Company_Address, Product_Address, and Project_Address
I was simply wondering, how an ISA relationship in an ER diagram would translate into tables in a database.
Would there be 3 tables? One for person, one for student, and one for Teacher?
Or would there be 2 tables? One for student, and one for teacher, with each entity having the attributes of person + their own?
Or would there be one table with all 4 attributes and some of the squares in the table being null depending on whether it was a student or teacher in the row?
NOTE: I forgot to add this, but there is full coverage for the ISA relationship, so a person must be either a studen or a teacher.
Assuming the relationship is mandatory (as you said, a person has to be a student or a teacher) and disjoint (a person is either a student or a teacher, but not both), the best solution is with 2 tables, one for students and one for teachers.
If the participation is instead optional (which is not your case, but let's put it for completeness), then the 3 tables option is the way to go, with a Person(PersonID, Name) table and then the two other tables which will reference the Person table, e.g.
Student(PersonID, GPA), with PersonID being PK and FK referencing Person(PersonID).
The 1 table option is probably not the best way here, and it will produce several records with null values (if a person is a student, the teacher-only attributes will be null and vice-versa).
If the disjointness is different, then it's a different story.
there are 4 options you can use to map this into an ER,
option 1
Person(SIN,Name)
Student(SIN,GPA)
Teacher(SIN,Salary)
option 2 Since this is a covering relationship, option 2 is not a good match.
Student(SIN,Name,GPA)
Teacher(SIN,Name,Salary)
option 3
Person(SIN,Name,GPA,Salary,Person_Type)
person type can be student/teacher
option 4
Person(SIN,Name,GPA,Salary,Student,Teacher) Student and Teacher are bool type fields, it can be yes or no,a good option for overlapping
Since the sub classes don't have much attributes, option 3 and option 4 are better to map this into an ER
This answer could have been a comment but I am putting it up here for the visibility.
I would like to address a few things that the chosen answer failed to address - and maybe elaborate a little on the consequences of the "two table" design.
The design of your database depends on the scope of your application and the type of relations and queries you want to perform. For example, if you have two types of users (student and teacher) and you have a lot of general relations that all users can part take, regardless of their type, then the two table design may end up with a lot of "duplicated" relations (like users can subscribe to different newsletters, instead of having one M2M relationship table between "users" and newsletters, you'll need two separate tables to represent that relation). This issue worsens if you have three different types of users instead of two, or if you have an extra layer of IsA in your hierarchy (part-time vs full-time students).
Another issue to consider - the types of constraints you want to implement. If your users have emails and you want to maintain a user-wide unique constraint on emails, then the implementation is trickier for a two-table design - you'll need to add an extra table for every unique constraint.
Another issue to consider is just duplications, generally. If you want to add a new common field to users, you'll need to do it multiple times. If you have unique constraints on that common field, you'll need a new table for that unique constraint too.
All of this is not to say that the two table design isn't the right solution. Depending on the type of relations, queries and features you are building, you may want to pick one design over the other, like is the case for most design decisions.
It depends entirely on the nature of the relationships.
IF the relationship between a Person and a Student is 1 to N (one to many), then the correct way would be to create a foreign key relationship, where the Student has a foreign key back to the Person's ID Primary Key Column. Same thing for the Person to Teacher relationship.
However, if the relationship is M to N (many to many), then you would want to create a separate table containing those relationships.
Assuming your ERD uses 1 to N relationships, your table structure ought to look something like this:
CREATE TABLE Person
(
sin bigint,
name text,
PRIMARY KEY (sin)
);
CREATE TABLE Student
(
GPA float,
fk_sin bigint,
FOREIGN KEY (fk_sin) REFERENCES Person(sin)
);
and follow the same example for the Teacher table. This approach will get you to 3rd Normal Form most of the time.
We always name lookup tables - such as Countries,Cities,Regions ... etc - as below :
EntityName_LK OR LK_EntityName ( Countries_LK OR LK_Countries )
But I ask if any one have more better naming conversions for lookup tables ?
Edit:
We think to make postfix or prefix to solve like a conflict :
if we have User tables and lookup table for UserTypes (ID-Name) and we have a relation many to many between User & UserTypes that make us a table which we can name it like Types_For_User that may make confusion between UserTypes & Types_For_User So we like to make lookup table UserTypes to be like UserTypesLK to be obvious to all
Before you decide you need the "lookup" moniker, you should try to understand why you are designating some tables as "lookups" and not others. Each table should represent an entity unto itself.
What happens when a table that was designated as a "lookup" grows in scope and is no longer considered a "lookup"? You are either left with changing the table name which can be onerous or leaving it as is and having to explain to everyone that a given table isn't really a "lookup".
A common scenario mentioned in the comments related to a junction table. For example, suppose a User can have multiple "Types" which are expressed in a junction table with two foreign keys. Should that table be called User_UserTypes? To this scenario, I would first say that I prefer to use the suffix Member on the junction table. So we would have Users, UserTypes, UserTypeMembers. Secondly, the word "type" in this context is quite generic. Does a UserType really mean a Role? The term you use can make all the difference. If UserTypes are really Roles, then our table names become Users, Roles, RoleMembers which seems quite clear.
Here are two concerns for whether to use a prefix or suffix.
In a sorted list of tables, do you want the LK tables to be together or do you want all tables pertaining to EntityName to appear together
When programming in environments with auto-complete, are you likely to want to type "LK" to get the list of tables or the beginning of EntityName?
I think there are arguments for either, but I would choose to start with EntityName.
Every table can become a lookup table.
Consider that a person is a lookup in an Invoice table.
So in my opinion, tables should just be named the (singular) entity name, e.g. Person, Invoice.
What you do want is a standard for the column names and constraints, such as
FK_Invoice_Person (in table invoice, link to person)
PersonID or Person_ID (column in table invoice, linking to entity Person)
At the end of the day, it is all up to personal preference (if you can get away with dictating it) or team standards.
updated
If you have lookups that pertain only to entities, like Invoice_Terms which is a lookup from a list of 4 scenarios, then you could name it as Invoice_LK_Terms which would make it appear by name grouped under Invoice. Another way is to have a single lookup table for simple single-value lookups, separated by the function (table+column) it is for, e.g.
Lookups
Table | Column | Value
There is only one type of table and I don't believe there is any good reason for calling some tables "lookup" tables. Use a naming convention that works equally for every table.
One area where table naming conventions can help is data migration between environments. We often have to move data in lookup tables (which constrain values which may appear in other tables) along with schema changes, as these allowed value lists change. Currently we don't name lookup tables differently, but we are considering it to prevent the migration guy asking "which tables are lookup tables again?" every time.