I created a table (t_subject) like this
| id | description | enabled |
|----|-------------|---------|
| 1 | a | 1 |
| 2 | b | 1 |
| 3 | c | 1 |
And another table (t_place) like this
| id | description | enabled |
|----|-------------|---------|
| 1 | d | 1 |
| 2 | e | 1 |
| 3 | f | 1 |
Right now data from t_subject is used for each of t_place records, to show HTML dropdowns, with all the results from t_subject.
So I simply do
SELECT * FROM t_subject WHERE enabled = 1
Now just for one of t_place records, one record from t_subject should be hidden.
I don't want to simply delete it with javascript, since I want to be able to customize all of the dropdowns if anything changes.
So the first thing I though was to add a place_id column to t_subject.
But this means I have to duplicate all of t_subject records, I would have 3 of each, except one that would have 2.
Is there any way to avoid this??
I thought adding an id_exclusion column to t_subject so I could duplicate records only whenever a record is excluded from another id from t_place.
How bad would that be?? This way I would have no duplicates, so far.
Hope all of this makes sense.
While you only need to exclude one course, I would still recommend setting up a full 'place-course' association. You essentially have a many-to-many relationship, despite not explicitly linking your tables.
I would recommend an additional 'bridging' or 'associative entity' table to represent which courses are offered at which places. This new table would have two columns - one foreign key for the ID of t_subject, and one for the ID of t_place.
For example (t_place_course):
| place_id | course_id |
|----------|-----------|
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 3 | 3 |
As you can see in my example above, place 3 doesn't offer course 2.
From here, you can simply query all of the courses available for a place by querying the place_id:
SELECT * from t_place_course WHERE place_id = 3
The above will return both courses 1 and 3.
You can optionally use a JOIN to get the other information about the course or place, such as the description:
SELECT `t_course`.`description`
FROM `t_course`
INNER JOIN `t_place_course`
ON `t_course`.`id` = `t_place_course`.`course_id`
INNER JOIN `t_place`
ON `t_place`.`id` = `place_id`
Related
I have a question about my DB table structure. I want to know if i'm on the right track or if I have missed a good alternative. Here is the case:
To make it easy to read, I haven't pasted the full contents as my question is only about the structure.
2 tables:
1: id (AI), task
2: id, name, task
Table 1 presents dynamic check-boxes which can be altered by an admin panel so the contents would be like this
1 task1
2 task2
5 task5
(3 & 4 are missing cause the administrator deleted those records).
In table number two are the people who should do the tasks from table 1. And the goal is that the tasks wich are not checked will be displayed.
So the contents of table 2 would be:
1 Name1 1,5
2 Name2 1,2
3 Name3 1,2,5
The numbers in table 2 represent the checked boxes from table 1. So with a query i can compare the numbers from table 2 with the id's from table 1 and display the missing ids as "todo".
In my opinion this looks very overdone, and there must be an easier way to create dynamic options which can be compared and stored as a todo.
Suggestions are welcome!
I suggest you to use basic structure for many-to-many relationship:
tasks users user_tasks
+----+-----------+ +----+-------+ +---------+---------+
| id | name | | id | name | | user_id | task_id |
+----+-----------+ +----+-------+ +---------+---------+
| 1 | Buy milk | | 1 | John | | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | Get drunk | | 2 | Tim | | 3 | 2 |
| 3 | Have fun | | 3 | Steve | | 2 | 4 |
| 4 | Go home | +----+-------+ | 3 | 4 |
+----+-----------+ +---------+---------+
And you can fetch unassigned tasks using following query:
SELECT
tasks.*
FROM
tasks
LEFT JOIN
user_tasks
ON (tasks.id = user_tasks.task_id)
WHERE
user_tasks.user_id IS NULL
You also can fetch users who have no assigned tasks:
SELECT
users.*
FROM
users
LEFT JOIN
user_tasks
ON (users.id = user_tasks.user_id)
WHERE
user_tasks.user_id IS NULL
Hope this will help you.
I have table:
+----+--------+----------+
| id | doc_id | next_req |
+----+--------+----------+
| 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 |
+----+--------+----------+
id - auto incerement primary key.
nex_req - represent an order of records. (next_req = id of record)
How can I build a SQL query get records in this order:
+----+--------+----------+
| id | doc_id | next_req |
+----+--------+----------+
| 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 0 |
+----+--------+----------+
Explains:
record1 with id=1 and next_req=4 means: next must be record4 with id=4 and next_req=2
record4 with id=5 and next_req=2 means: next must be record2 with id=2 and next_req=3
record2 with id=2 and next_req=3 means: next must be record3 with id=1 and next_req=0
record3 with id=3 and next_req=0: means that this is a last record
I need to store an order of records in table. It's important fo me.
If you can, change your table format. Rather than naming the next record, mark the records in order so you can use a natural SQL sort:
+----+--------+------+
| id | doc_id | sort |
+----+--------+------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 | 4 |
+----+--------+------+
Then you can even cluster-index on doc_id,sort for if you need to for performance issues. And honestly, if you need to re-order rows, it is not any more work than a linked-list like you were working with.
Am able to give you a solution in Oracle,
select id,doc_id,next_req from table2
start with id =
(select id from table2 where rowid=(select min(rowid) from table2))
connect by prior next_req=id
fiddle_demo
I'd suggest to modify your table and add another column OrderNumber, so eventually it would be easy to order by this column.
Though there may be problems with this approach:
1) You have existing table and need to set OrderNumber column values. I guess this part is easy. You can simply set initial zero values and add a CURSOR for example moving through your records and incrementing your order number value.
2) When new row appears in your table, you have to modify your OrderNumber, but here it depends on your particular situation. If you only need to add items to the end of the list then you can set your new value as MAX + 1. In another situation you may try writing TRIGGER on inserting new items and calling similar steps to point 1). This may cause very bad hit on performance, so you have to carefully investigate your architecture and maybe modify this unusual construction.
Some background: an 'image' is part of one 'photoshoot', and may be a part of zero or many 'galleries'. My tables:
'shoots' table:
+----+--------------+
| id | name |
+----+--------------+
| 1 | Test shoot |
| 2 | Another test |
| 3 | Final test |
+----+--------------+
'images' table:
+----+-------------------+------------------+
| id | original_filename | storage_location |
+----+-------------------+------------------+
| 1 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
| 2 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
| 3 | test.jpg | store/test.jpg |
+----+-------------------+------------------+
'shoot_images' table:
+----------+----------+
| shoot_id | image_id |
+----------+----------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 |
+----------+----------+
'gallery_images' table:
+------------+----------+
| gallery_id | image_id |
+------------+----------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 4 | 1 |
+------------+----------+
What I'd like to get back, so I can say 'For this photoshoot, there are X images in total, and these images are featured in Y galleries:
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| id | name | image_count | gallery_count |
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
| 3 | Final test | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Another test | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | Test shoot | 2 | 4 |
+----+--------------+-------------+---------------+
I'm currently trying the SQL below, which appears to work correctly but only ever returns one row. I can't work out why this is happening. Curiously, the below also returns a row even when 'shoots' is empty.
SELECT shoots.id,
shoots.name,
COUNT(DISTINCT shoot_images.image_id) AS image_count,
COUNT(DISTINCT gallery_images.gallery_id) AS gallery_count
FROM shoots
LEFT JOIN shoot_images ON shoots.id=shoot_images.shoot_id
LEFT JOIN gallery_images ON shoot_images.image_id=gallery_images.image_id
ORDER BY shoots.id DESC
Thanks for taking the time to look at this :)
You are missing the GROUP BY clause:
SELECT
shoots.id,
shoots.name,
COUNT(DISTINCT shoot_images.image_id) AS image_count,
COUNT(DISTINCT gallery_images.gallery_id) AS gallery_count
FROM shoots
LEFT JOIN shoot_images ON shoots.id=shoot_images.shoot_id
LEFT JOIN gallery_images ON shoot_images.image_id=gallery_images.image_id
GROUP BY 1, 2 -- Added this line
ORDER BY shoots.id DESC
Note: The SQL standard allows GROUP BY to be given either column names or column numbers, so GROUP BY 1, 2 is equivalent to GROUP BY shoots.id, shoots.name in this case. There are many who consider this "bad coding practice" and advocate always using the column names, but I find it makes the code a lot more readable and maintainable and I've been writing SQL since before many users on this site were born, and it's never cause me a problem using this syntax.
FYI, the reason you were getting one row before, and not getting and error, is that in mysql, unlike any other database I know, you are allowed to omit the group by clause when using aggregating functions. In such cases, instead of throwing a syntax exception, mysql returns the first row for each unique combination of non-aggregate columns.
Although at first this may seem abhorrent to SQL purists, it can be incredibly handy!
You should look into the MySQL function group by.
I have a table which only contains id and a field whose data is a list of data. e.g.
--------------
| id | data |
| 1 | a,b,c,d|
| 2 | a,b,k,m|
---------------
I guess it's not a good design that put a list data in a field, so I want to know how can I redesign it?
As per me you need two tables i.e. Master and Transaction tables only when some details are gonna be same for every records and some are gonna be changing. In your case if there are not any other thing related to your id field is gonna be same you can carry on with one table and with following structure.
--------------
| id | data |
| 1 | a |
| 1 | b |
| 1 | c |
| 1 | d |
| 2 | a |
| 2 | b |
| 2 | k |
| 2 | m |
---------------
BUT if there are any other things related to the id fields that is gonna be same for same id records you will have to use two tables.
like following case. there are 3 fields id, name and data.
and you current table looks something like
--------------------------
| id | name | data |
| 1 | testname | a,b,c,d|
| 2 | remy | a,b,c,d|
--------------------------
your new table structure should look like.
table 1 Master
-----------------
| id | name |
| 1 | testname |
| 2 | remy |
-----------------
Table 2 Transaction
--------------
| id | data |
| 1 | a |
| 1 | b |
| 1 | c |
| 1 | d |
| 2 | a |
| 2 | b |
| 2 | k |
| 2 | m |
---------------
For better database management we might need to normalize the data.
Database normalization is the process of organizing the fields and tables of a relational database to minimize redundancy and dependency. Normalization usually involves dividing large tables into smaller (and less redundant) tables and defining relationships between them. The objective is to isolate data so that additions, deletions, and modifications of a field can be made in just one table and then propagated through the rest of the database via the defined relationships. You can find more on below links
3 Normal Forms Database Tutorial
Database normalization
If you have only those two fields in your table then you should have only 1 table as below
id | data
with composite primary key as PRIMARY KEY(id,data) so that there won't be any duplicate data for the respective ID.
The data would be like this
id | data
1 | a
1 | b
1 | c
1 | d
2 | a
2 | b
2 | k
2 | m
You will need another table which can be of the ONE to MANY type.
For e.g. you could have another table datamapping which would have data and ID column where the ID column is a FOREIGN KEY to the ID column of the data table.
So according to your example there would be 4 entries for ID = 1 in the datamapping table.
You will need two tables with a foreign key.
Table 1
id
Table 2
id
datavalue
So the data looks like:
Table 1:
id
1
2
3
Table 2:
id | data
1 | a
1 | b
1 | c
1 | d
2 | a
2 | b
2 | k
2 | m
You are correct, this this is not a good database design. The data field violates the principle of atomicity and therefore the 1NF, which can lead to problems in maintaining and querying the data.
To normalize your design, split the original table in two. There are 2 basic strategies to do it: using non-identifying and using identifying relationship.
NOTE: If you only have id in the parent table, and no other FKs on it, and parent cannot exist without at least one child (i.e. data could not have been empty in the original design), you can dispense with the parent table altogether.
I am trying to do multiple joins on the same MySQL table, but am not getting the results that I expect to get. Hopefully someone can point out my mistake(s).
Table 1 - cpe Table
|id | name
|----------
| 1 | cat
| 2 | dog
| 3 | mouse
| 4 | snake
-----------
Table 2 - AutoSelect
|id | name | cpe1_id | cpe2_id | cpe3_id |
|-----------------------------------------------
| 1 | user1 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 2 | user2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | user3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 4 | user4 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
------------------------------------------------
I would like to see an output of
user1 | cat | mouse | snake |
user2 | mouse | snake | dog |
..etc
Here is what I have tried
SELECT * FROM AutoSelect
LEFT JOIN cpe ON
( cpe.id = AutoSelect.cpe1_id ) AND
( cpe.id = AutoSelect.cpe2_id ) AND
( cpe.id = AutoSelect.cpe3_id )
I get blank results. I thought i knew how to do these joins, but apparently when I'm trying to match cpe?_id with the name of the cpe table.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
You need left join 3 times as well. Currently your query only joins 1 time with 3 critieria as to the join. This should do:
SELECT a.name, cpe1.name, cpe2.name, cpe3.name FROM AutoSelect as a
LEFT JOIN cpe as cpe1 ON ( cpe1.id = a.cpe1_id )
LEFT JOIN cpe as cpe2 ON ( cpe2.id = a.cpe2_id )
LEFT JOIN cpe as cpe3 ON ( cpe3.id = a.cpe3_id )
And you probably mean to INNER JOIN rather than LEFT JOIN unless NULL values are allowed in your AutoSelect table.
I think your design is wrong.
With tables like that, you get it the way it's meant to be in relational databases :
table 1 : animal
id name
1 cat
2 dog
3 mouse
4 snake
table 2 : user
|id | name |
|--------------
| 1 | user1 |
| 2 | user2 |
| 3 | user3 |
| 4 | user4 |
table 3 : association
|id_user | id_animal|
|--------------------
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 3 |
| 1 | 4 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 3 |
| 3 | 2
| 4 | 4 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 4 | 1 |
---------------------
Then :
select u.name, a.name from user u, animal a, association ass where ass.user_id = u.id and ass.animal_id = a.id;
In this case, your solution won't produce a good dynamic database. There are other ways to make combinations of multiple tables. I can show you by my own database what you should use and when you should use this solution. The scheme is in dutch, but you'll probably understand the keywords.
Like you, I had to combine my windmills with a kWh-meter, which has to measure the energyproduction of my windmills. What you should do, is this case, is making another table(in my case molenkWhlink). Make sure your tables are INNODB-types(for making Foreign keys). What I've done is combining my meters and mills by putting a pointer(a foreign key) of their ID(in Dutch Volgnummer) in the new table. An advantage you may not need, but I certainly did, is the fact I was able to extend the extra table with connection and disconnection info like Timestamps and metervalues when linking or unlinking. This makes your database way more dynamic.
In my case, I Also had a table for meassurements(metingoverzicht). As you can see in the scheme, I've got 2 lines going from Metingoverzicht to molenkwhlink. The reason for this is quite simple. All meassurements I take, will be saved in table Metingoverzicht. Daily meassurements(which are scheduled) will have a special boolean put on, but unscheduled meassurements, will also me saved here, with the bollean turned off. When switching meters, I need the endvalue from the leaving meter and the startvalue from the new meter, to calculate the value of todays eneryproduction. This is where your solution comes in and an extra table won't work. Usually, when you need just one value from another table a JOIN will be used. The problem in this case is, I've got 2 meassurementIDs in 1 link(1 for connecting and 1 for disconnecting). They both point to the same tablecolumn, because they both need to hold the same type of information. That is when you can use a double JOIN from one table towards the other. Because, both values will only be used once, and just needed to be saved in a different place to avoid having 1 action stored on different locations, which should always be avoided.
http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/Manuel_Barcelona/media/schemedatabase.jpg.html