I have users and doctors. It is an app that both regular people and doctors can use. I'm not sure which way to setup my database.
Two tables - users and doctors tables
One table, extra column - users table with column user_type
Which one is the best way to do it? What are the pros and cons of both?
Keeping separate tables for me is good especially if you make user table to be as basic as possible (with username and password). This way you know that even if requirements changes in the future and you need to add another user type with other additional fields, then you don't have to worry about other sections of your code. I am just thinking about the future changes or additions. Doctors is abstract. Again this might be the problem in the future when you have to categorize them (e.g by their specialty).
Just my two cents worth.
2 tables is your best approach. Although not the 2 tables you have suggested.
If you analyze your situation a little more basically, you have users and they belong to 1 of 2 groups (general public and doctors).
This is a standard user group situation, so using 1 table to store user specific data with a reference to a user_group table (ie user belongs to group) is a good solution.
This also allows you to add groups later on - renal patient, renal doctor, cardiac patient, cardiac doctor ...
Using a setup with users and user_groups is usually a good way to go.
Related
A friend who is a recruiter for software engineers wants me to create an app for him.
He wants to be able to search candidates' CVs based on skills.
As you can imagine, there are potentially hundreds, possibly thousands of skills.
What's the best way to represent the candidate in a table? I am thinking skill_1, skill_2, skill_n, etc, but somewhere out there there is a candidate with more than n skills.
Also, it is possible that more skills will be added to the database in future.
So, what's the best way to represent a candidate's skills?
[Update] for #zohar, here's a rough first pass at teh schema. Any comments?
You need three tables (at least):
One table for candidates, that will contain all the details such as name, contact information, the cv (or a link to it) and all other relevant details.
One table for skills - that will contain the skill name, and perhaps a short description (if that's relevant)
and one table to connect candidates to skills - candidatesToSkills - that will have a 1 to many relationship with both tables - and a primary key that is the combination of the candidate id and the skill id.
This is the relational way of creating a many to many relationship.
As a bonus, you can also add a column for skill level - beginner, intermediate, skilled, expert etc'.
You might also want to add a table for job openings and another table to connect that to the skills table, so that you can easily find the most suitable candidate for the job based on the required skills. (but please note that skills is not the only match needed - other points to match are geographic location, salary expectations, etc'.)
I want to design a web application for keeping track of the finance of the members of an organization. Certain functions are very similar to Splittr. I define my requirements using the MWE database diagrams:
"Finance" tables: Each user will have one personal finance account, for which I am using the following three red tables:
"SharedExpense" tables: Each user can have shared expenses with other users in many 'shared-expense-groups'. For each group, I am using the following three blue tables:
(Note how each user can define amount of their share, and own category of the shared expense. UserShare table uses a composite primary key.)
The problem: I have to relate the users to their 3 personal "Finance" tables and the 3N "SharedExpense" tables (where N is the number of 'shared-expense-groups' the user belongs to).
Attempted Solutions:
Multiple databases. Each user has a unique database for their "Finance" tables. Each 'shared-expense-group' has a unique database on the server. I can then relate the users from one master database with the following four purple tables:
Drawbacks: Foreign keys come from different databases, large number of databases to be backed up.
Multiple tables. I can create all the tables in the same database and relate all of them with the four green master tables:
Here, the number of tables is a potential problem. If there are M users and N 'shared-expense-groups, then there will be 3M + 3N tables!
The question: Is there more elegant and simpler database design for the purpose? If not, which of the above two solutions is better and why?
Links to relevant, previous StackOverflow Q&A:
Personal finance app database design
Database design for tracking progress over time
SQL for a Household Bill splitting db
Comparing 1 Database with Many Tables to Multiple Databases with Fewer Tables in Each
There is to much to describe all the challenges in a summary, but I'll pick out a few.
Fundamental design violations: such as a table/database for each user
entity design, 3NF: such as category.budget and ledger.transaction_type
referential integrity/relationship design:
account is for one user, but account table does not contain the user id;
usershare is a subset of ledger, but they both point to a user;
object naming concerns:
clear and consistent naming entities, based on real usage. Is a member a user or a user a member? If they are the same, choose one name. If they are not the same, the design is different. Do staff use client or customer rather than member?
consistency in your key naming. The key name should directly tie it to the source entity. Members.ID should be referenced as members_id, rather than user_id. However, see the next entry before correcting this.
be consistent in your entity plurality. The general consensus is that the name should describe a single record (User) rather than all the records (Users).
ledger.spent_on - that name is not obviously a date. It could be pointing to a user or category as well. An attribute name should describe the attribute without needing additional explanation. For example, ledger.Purchase_Date is self explanatory. It should also be clear how it relates to the entity. UserShare.Share doesn't really tell me what it contains.
Sorry to be blunt, but I would start over. Consider what you have as a good trial run and start again using the additional information you have.
Ask questions of your designs (Are all users members? Are all members users?). If the answer is anything other than Yes or No, break it down further.
Try what-if scenarios (What if a shared ledger exceeds the category budget? How will previous spending be perceived if the category budget changes?)
Consider what reporting questions may be asked (Who went over budget? How much are we spending on this category?) and then consider the query to answer the question.
Read up on 3NF and maybe some of the higher normalization levels as well. Whereas 3NF is pretty nearly the minimum normalization, the higher levels become increasingly specialized and may or may not be appropriate for you design.
The better you understand your data AND business, the better your design will be, and the better your end product will turn out.
I am trying to model as much of the data as possible for a new app before starting. The app will have Users & Spaces. The Spaces will have a number of Admin levels but will also have non-admin Members. The Space will associate Admins through space_roles/space_admins join table (name depends on the design decision I am trying to make). I am using a Role model to create the association between Spaces and Admins. This means the the space_roles table will be a three way join with user_id, space_id and role_id columns.
I plan to eventually build a bunch of tools around Spaces that the Members will have access to. These might not necessarily be restricted to Members of a certain Space. There most likely will be cases further down the road where Members of one Space can interact across organizational boundaries with Members of another Space using the Space as the scope (e.g. a fan of one sports team could join in on a discussion on the wall of another sports team where sports team is an analogy for Space).
My question is should I just create another Role called 'member' or should I break members out into another model (Member?) with an association through space_members? Please explain the advantages/disadvantages of your recommendation as best as possible.
If your Admin users are a subset of your Users, and it's possible for Users to become, or stop being, Admins, then keep them in the same table.
If your users (admins or not) can participate in more than one of your spaces, you probably want a single users table, and a separate users_spaces join table. That table might have this layout.
user_id part of the primary key
space_id the rest of the primary key
role 1 = contributor to the space, 2=member, 3=admin 4=owner etc
If users and admins are entirely distinct sets of people, then use two two tables and keep them separate. For example, if you were doing health care, and they were Nurses and Patients, you would definitely keep them separate, because they are subject to different confidentiality rules.
I have a table Things and I want to add ownership relations to a table Users. I need to be able to quickly query the owners of a thing and the things a user owns. If I know that there will be at most 50 owners, and the pdf for the number of owners will probably look like this, should I rather
add 50 columns to the Things table, like CoOwner1Id, CoOwner2Id, …, CoOwner50Id, or
should I model this with a Ownerships table which has UserId and ThingId columns, or
would it better to create a table for each thing, for example Thing8321Owners with a row for each owner, or
perhaps a combination of these?
The second choice is the correct one; you should create an intermediate table between the table Things and the table Owners (that contains the details of each owner).
This table should have the thing_id and the owner_id as the primary key.
So finally, you well have 3 tables:
Things (the things details and data)
Owner (the owners details and data)
Ownerships (the assignment of each thing_id to an owner_id)
Because in a relational DB you should not have any redundant data.
You should definitely go with option 2 because what you are trying to model is a many to many relationship. (Many owners can relate to a thing. Many things can relate to an owner.) This is commonly accomplished using what I call a bridging table. (Which exactly what option 2 is.) It is a standard technique in a normalized database.
The other two options are going to give you nightmares trying to query or maintain.
With option 1 you'll need to join the User table to the Thing table on 50 columns to get all of your results. And what happens when you have a really popular thing that 51 people want to own?
Option 3 is even worse. The only way to easily query the data is to use dynamic sql or write a new query each time because you don't know which Thing*Owners table to join on until you know the ID value of the thing you're looking for. Or you're going to need to join the User table to every single Thing*Owners table. Adding a new thing means creating a whole new table. But at least a thing doesn't have a limit on the number of owners it could possibly have.
Now isn't this:
SELECT Users.Name, Things.Name
FROM Users
INNER JOIN Ownership ON Users.UserId=Ownership.UserId
INNER JOIN Things ON Things.ThingId=Ownership.ThingId
much easier than any of those other scenarios?
I have my own theories on the best way to do this, but I think its a common topic and I'd be interested in the different methods people use. Here goes
Whats the best way to deal with many-to-many join tables, particularly as far as naming them goes, what to do when you need to add extra information to the relationship, and what to do whene there are multiple relationships between two tables?
Lets say you have two tables, Users and Events and need to store the attendees. So you create EventAttendees table. Then a requirement comes up to store the organisers. Should you
create an EventOrganisers table, so each new relationship is modelled with a join table
or
rename EventAttendees to UserEventRelationship (or some other name, like User2Event or UserEventMap or UserToEvent), and an IsAttending column and a IsOrganiser column i.e. You have a single table which you store all relationship info between two attendees
or
a bit of both (really?)
or
something else entirely?
Thoughts?
The easy answer to a generic question like this is, as always, "It all depends on the details".
But in general, I try to create fewer tables when this can be done without abusing the data definitions unduly. So in your example, I would probably add an isOrganizer column to the table, or maybe an attendeeType to allow for easy future expansion from audience/organizer to audience/organizer/speaker/caterer or whatever may be needed. Creating an extra table with essentially identical columns, where the table name is in effect a flag identifying the "attendee type", seems to me the wrong way to go both from a pristine design perspective and also from a practical point of view.
A single table is more flexible. With one table and a type field, if we want to know just the organizers -- like when we're sending invitations to a planning meaning -- fine, we write "select userid from userevent where eventid=? and attendeetype='O'". If we want to know everyone who will be there -- like when we're printing name cards for the lunch tables -- we just don't include the attendeetype test.
But suppose we have two tables. Then if we want just the organizers, okay, that's easy, join on the organizer table. But if we want both organizers and audience, then we have to do a union, which makes for more complicated queries and is usually slow. And if you're thinking, What's the big deal doing a union?, note that there may be more to the query. Perhaps a person can have multiple phone numbers and we care about this, so the query is not just joining user and eventAttendee but also phone. Maybe we want to know if they've attended previous conferences because we give special deals to "alumni", so we have to join in eventAttendee a second time, etc etc. A ten-table join with a union can get very messy and confusing to read.