Good evening,
I write you after days of "thinking": D
I'm working on a WFM system that allows you to manage activities from the field.
But now the request to manage several different activities forced me to redesign the whole DB.
Originally only 2 types of activities were handled (Installation, Failures) and all was managed by a single database table with all the columns of one and the other activity. The unused column for a task assumed the null value and was not shown via PHP.
Now I have to understand how to structure a db that has the following characteristics:
- the user can configure endless types of different activities (Installation, Failure, Gardening, Reclamation, etc ...)
- the user can configure infinite properties / attributes (Client name, Surname, Address, Expiration date, etc ...)
- for each activity can be associated many properties (certainly not all)
- each property plus being associated with many activities (certainly not all)
- each property can take as many values as it is applied (N ° values = property X activity to which it is applied)
- the user does not have to choose the table in which to insert the property, whether this is called "Customer cousin name" or "IBAN for payment"
Making a practical example I can have that the properties of customer registry are used for each activity, but maybe the property "Height grass" is used only for the activity "Gardening"
Can someone help me? Thank you
Related
I've got a annoying design issue when designing a database and it's models. Essentially, the database got clients and customers which should be able to make appointments with eachother. The clients should have their availability (on a general week basis) stored in the database, and this needs to be added to the appointment model. The solution does not require or want precise hours for the availability, just one value for each day - ranging from "not available", to "maybe available " to "available". The only solution i've come up with so far includes having all 7 days stored in a row for each client, but it looks nasty.
So here's some of what I got so far:
Client model:
ClientId
Service,
Fee
Customer-that-uses-Client model:
CustomerId
ServiceNeed
Availability-model:
ClientID (FK/PK)
Monday, (int)
...
...
Sunday (int)
And finally, appointment model:
AppointmentId
ClientID
CustomerID
StartDate
Hourse
Problem: is there any way i can redesign the avilability model to ... well, need less fields and still get each day stored with a (1-3) value depending on the clients availability ? Would also be really good if the appointment model wouldnt need to reference all that data from the availability model...
Problem
Answering the narrow question is easy. However, noting the Relational Database tag, there are a few problems in your model, that render it somewhat less than Relational.
Eg. the data content in each logical row needs to be unique. (Uniqueness on the Record id, which is physical, system-generated, and not from the data, cannot provide row uniqueness.) The Primary Key must be "made up from the data", which is of course the only way to make the data row unique.
Eg. values such as Day of availability and AvailabilityType are not constrained, and they need to be.
Relational Data Model
With the issues fixed, the answer looks like this:
Notation
All my data models are rendered in IDEF1X, the Standard for modelling Relational databases since 1993.
My IDEF1X Introduction is essential reading for those who are new to the Relational Model or data modelling.
Content
In the Relational Model, there is a large emphasis on constraining the data, such that the database as a whole contains only valid data.
The only solution i've come up with so far includes having all 7 days stored in a row for each client, but it looks nasty.
Yes. What you had was a repeating attribute (they are named Monday..Sunday, which may not look like a repeating attribute, but it is one, no less than a CSV list). That breaks Codd's Second Normal Form.
The solution is to place the single element in a subordinate table ProviderAvailable.
Day of availability and AvailabilityType are now constrained to a set of values.
The rows in Provider (sorry, the use of "Client" in this context grates on me) and Customer are now unique, due to addition of a Name. The users will not use an internal number to identify such entities, they will use a name, usually a ShortName.
Once the model is tightened up, and all the columns are defined, if Name (not a combination of LastName, FirstName, Initial) is unique, you can eliminate the RecordId, and elevate the Name AK to the PK.
Not Modelled
You have not asked, and I have not modelled these items, but I suspect they will come up as you progress in the development.
A Provider (Client) provides 1 Service. There may be more than 1 in future.
A Customer, seeking 1 Service, can make an Appointment with any Provider (who may or may not provide that Service). You may want to constrain each Appointment to a Provider who provides the sought Service.
As per my comment. It depends on how tight you want this Availability/Reservation system to be. Right now, there is nothing to prevent more than one Customer reserving one Provider on a particular Day, ie. a double-booking.
Normalize that availability table: instead of
ClientID (FK/PK)
Monday, (int)
...
...
Sunday (int)
go with
ClientID (PK/FK)
weekday integer value (0-6 or maybe 1-7) (PK)
availability integer value 1-3
This table has a compound primary key, made of (ClientID, weekday) because each client may have either zero or one entry for each of the seven weekdays.
In this table, you might have these rows:
43 2 3 (on Tuesdays = 2, client 43 is Available =3)
43 3 2 (on Wednesdays = 3, client 43 is MaybeAvailable =2)
If the row is missing, it means the client is unavailable. an availability value of 1 also means that.
how are you?
I'm working on a project that contains accounts with mailing list.
The account has 3 packages he can buy. Each package has it's own settings. e.g.: first package the user gets 1 email per day, and in second package he gets 5 emails per day.
Another feature that I want is the opertunity to override some of the package settings. Which means, for one account I'll set daily email limit as 7.
One more feature I need in this system is email providers. I want the first package to get emails only from first provider, second package from 2 providers and so on.
So I have a problem designing my DB.
I created table emailSubscriptions which has EmailID and name.
I created table accountsGroup which only contains GroupId and name.
I created table accounts which has AccountID, GroupID (foreign key), Email, password and investment. (According to his investment he gets his package).
I've created table accountsSubscriptions which has SUBSCRIPTION ID, AccountID, EmailID and IsActive.
I created table packages which contains PackageID, GroupID, from investment and to investment, and all other package settings e.g. maxEmailsPerDay ....
Of course the end user has. GUI that he can see his settings and edit what he can according to his current package. The admin of the users has GUI too.
Any way, now I got stuck.
I thought about adding to accounts all package columns and then when I want to send emails, I'll take the settings from the group and where ever it's not 0 / empty just override, but the problem is when some settings are 0 / 1, then the column is default 0 and if the groupSettings is 1 for something and I want to turn it off I can't. So this is the first problem
The second problem is with allowed emails subscriptions ... Same problem actually.
I thought about adding to package the allowedEmails, but then it means when ever I send the emails I need to use LIKE operator - and this is not good for runtime.
So I really need you help... Hope you can help me.
Thanks !!
The requirements part lacks clarity, I'd say.
But let's go for it anyway.
Let's extract entities from this messy field of things.
Each entity would generally means one table.
Start from Account.
Account has Subscriptions. It is not clear what's the relation here: if it is 1:1 ("account can have only one subscription") - then reference to it is a part of the Account entity, if it is 1:n - then you'll need a special Account-Subscriptions relation table.
Now Subscription - it is defined by SubscriptionType, or Package, so there must be a table that contains these records (these limits and whatever else you want). Account or Account-Subscription table would refer to it to define what subscription(s) the Account have.
Then Providers - they're referred by SubscriptionType/Packages. If there could be more than 1 Provider per Package/SubscriptionType - then you need additional Package-Provider realtion table.
And finally, the Overrides. That's a trickier part because of the weak requirements on it, but as soon as they're overriding the Package paremeters, I suggest to keep the entity structure same to the package.
You may even place it into the same Package table, sorting 'em out by date, or assign them weights, always keeping the default Package record with the lowest weight.
Then, when you create an override, you copy the whole default record except for the overridden fields, and assign it next weight (or current date), and when you query it - group it and get the MAX().
There's no Email entity itself - but you didn't mention it in your requirements sections whatsoever.
So, that's pretty much it: Accounts, Subscriptions, (optional) Account-Subscription, Packages, Providers, (optional) Package-Provider, (optional, may be incorporated into Packages) Overrrides.
Works for you?
I am planning on creating a database to track user's time in/time out M-F. Every week should begin on monday and run through sunday.
I have a table filled with my entire user population, so I know which users I need to create entries for and where they belong to. I have proposed so far, a table consisting of the following fields to track the entries (along with example data to fill the fields):
Field Name in table (Example of possible data)
---------------------
Employee (John Smith) 'String
Unit (Quality Assurance) 'String
WeekOf (9/9/13) 'date
InMonday (6:30) 'string, validate either a time in/out or N/A if holiday/vacation
OutMonday (3:15) '^^
HoursWorkedMonday (8.00) 'total hours worked
VacationMonday (0.00) 'if N/A for time, should have hours here
OvertimeMonday (0.00) 'any additional work hours should go here
For this instance, I would have to create In/Out for each day of the week (and perhaps track the date that each day is for). Is this extraneous or is there a seemingly better organization to tracking weekly time measurements? Should I use one table with a unit indicator or multiple tables for each unit?
Usually it's one table with a Date field, an In field and an Out field. That's pretty much standard timesheet data. Take a look at how this guy has it set up.
Make sure you're using an Employee ID in the timesheet, and then you would have a corresponding Employee table with all relevant info (ID, Name, Address, whatever else you store on him/her).
While this project is technically feasible, I have to question the value of making it yourself in Access.
The main issue is with security:
As a desktop program, this can be very easy to hack without precautions. Keep in mind that with Access, the user interface and the designer interface are by default the same thing.
If this is going to be a simple, straightforward db, a motivated user just needs to open the navigation panel and they can add/edit/delete all the timesheets.
If you hide the navigation panel, the user can just do a quick google search and learn to hit F11 (or find it by accident, either way)
You can try regularly (daily? hourly?) transferring the data from the publicly accessible back-end to an archive db that is not accessible to the general users. This can work, but still gives them a window to edit records. And if you don't do the transfer right, they can still add old records.
As a webform on a SharePoint, this can be fairly secure. I'd recommend this if you have Sharepoint.
You should also consider your development time. This is a very common business task across many industries, from restaurants to factories to schools. As such, there's a huge number of cheap web-based options already out there that you can start using today. I'll even assume some of these include summary reviews breaking out numbers by departments as well.
I've never researched these myself, but a quick google search found this interesting page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_time_tracking_software
I've been using Access to create simple databases for a while with great success, but have run into a problem I can't find an answer to.
We ship individualized serialized units to various end-users, and occasionally to resellers that stock them for end-users. I must keep track of which serial numbers end up with each end-users.
The first database I created to handle this recorded company information in one table using their account number as primary key, order information in a second table using the order number as the primary key and linked via the company name, and unit information in a third table with the serial number as the primary key and linked via the order number.
This worked very well until I had to account for these stock orders with a reseller. As it was structured, every unit was linked to one company via the sales order. The issue is that I may ship 20 units on one order to Company A, who then sells 5 to Company B and 3 to Company C.
I realized I needed to link the company name directly to the units, not the orders and have fixed that.
My issue now is simplicity in entering information in the form. My previous database involved the employee in our shipping department merely entering the sales order, selecting the customer name from a drop down menu, then scanning the serial numbers in a subform. This was to ensure simplicity and try to eliminate human error. He had only three things to input, and most of the input was done by scanning barcodes.
As it is currently structured now, the employees out in shipping would have to populate the company name for every record in the subform with the serial number and that complicates things in a way that is unacceptable. At the point of shipping, the company name will always be the same for every unit in the subform.
So.
How would I go about creating a form where the company name is entered once in the form, and automatically populates itself for every record in the subform? The caveat here is that I must also be able to go back occasionally and change the company name of individual units in an order without necessarily affecting the rest of the order. I suppose it starts out as a one-to-many relationship that then must be able to change.
I hope that makes sense.
I have looked for answers using various approaches with auto-fill and relationships and not preserving data integrity, but I feel the answer is just beyond my reach.
The only solution I can think of is to create another field in the unit table for the end-user, and perhaps write a formula that sets this default value as the company name from the order that shipped it. This seems unnecessarily complicated and redundant, there has to be a better way.
So I have this application that I'm drawing up and I start to think about my users. Well, My initial thought was to create a table for each group type. I've been thinking this over though and I'm not sure that this is the best way.
Example:
// Users
Users [id, name, email, age, etc]
// User Groups
Player [id, years playing, etc]
Ref [id, certified, etc]
Manufacturer Rep [id, years employed, etc]
So everyone would be making an account, but each user would have a different group. They can also be in multiple different groups. Each group has it's own list of different columns. So what is the best way to do this? Lets say I have 5 groups. Do I need 8 tables + a relational table connecting each one to the user table?
I just want to be sure that this is the best way to organize it before I build it.
Edit:
A player would have columns regarding the gear that they use to play, the teams they've played with, events they've gone to.
A ref would have info regarding the certifications they have and the events they've reffed.
Manufacturer reps would have info regarding their position within the company they rep.
A parent would have information regarding how long they've been involved with the sport, perhaps relations with the users they are parent of.
Just as an example.
Edit 2:
**Player Table
id
user id
started date
stopped date
rank
**Ref Table
id
user id
started date
stopped date
is certified
certified by
verified
**Photographer / Videographer / News Reporter Table
id
user id
started date
stopped date
worked under name
website / channel link
about
verified
**Tournament / Big Game Rep Table
id
user id
started date
stopped date
position
tourney id
verified
**Store / Field / Manufacturer Rep Table
id
user id
started date
stopped date
position
store / field / man. id
verified
This is what I planned out so far. I'm still new to this so I could be doing it completely wrong. And it's only five groups. It was more until I condensed it some.
Although I find it weird having so many entities which are different from each other, but I will ignore this and get to the question.
It depends on the group criteria you need, in the case you described where each group has its own columns and information I guess your design is a good one, especially if you need the information in a readable form in the database. If you need all groups in a single table you will have to save the group relevant information in a kind of object, either a blob, XML string or any other form, but then you will lose the ability to filter on these criteria using the database.
In a relational Database I would do it using the design you described.
The design of your tables greatly depends on the requirements of your software.
E.g. your description of users led me in a wrong direction, I was at first thinking about a "normal" user of a software. Basically name, login-information and stuff like that. This I would never split over different tables as it really makes tasks like login, session handling, ... really complicated.
Another point which surprised me, was that you want to store the equipment in columns of those user's tables. Usually the relationship between a person and his equipment is not 1 to 1 and in most cases the amount of different equipment varies. Thus you usually have a relationship between users and their equipment (1:n). Thus you would design an equipment table and there refer to the owner's user id.
But after you have an idea of which data you have in your application and which relationships exist between your data, the design of the tables and so on is rather straitforward.
The good news is, that your data model and database design will develop over time. Try to start with a basic model, covering the majority of your use cases. Then slowly add more use cases / aspects.
As long as you are in the stage of planning and early implementation phasis, it is rather easy to change your database design.