I am running an e-commerce site with multiple stores and each store having its products. I currently have a table called product-store which has a list of all product id referencing the products name and description from a different table , prices etc and their corresponding store ids. This table could have same product repeating multiple times if multiple store carry it.
I am mooting the idea of having a separate table for each store(product-store1, product-store2) rather than having all stores in one product-store table. I could be adding 100 stores and hence 100 tables like this. The structure of each table is the same but the reason why I am thinking of doing this is for better encapsulation of data from the other stores. However this would also mean identifying the corresponding table first for the store and then fetching the data.
I need help in assessing if this is a right approach and how I can measure the two approaches.
There are very few good reasons for splitting a table into multiple tables. Here are reasons not to do it:
SQL is optimized for large tables, but not for lots of small tables with the same structure. (With small tables, you end up with lots of partially filled data pages.)
Maintenance is a nightmare. Adding a column, changing a data type, and so on has to be repeated many times.
A simple query such as "How many stores sell a single product?" are problematic.
You cannot have a foreign key relationship into this table, for instance, to have a history of prices or discounts on the product in each store.
A single table is almost always the best way to go.
I guess it also depends on if the products might be shared across different stores. I would not go the way of creating x tables for x stores, but a general structure to be able to hold all the information.
If so, you could set up at least three tables:
product (holds all the generic products information, shop independent)
store (information about the stores)
store_product (links the products to the stores)
This way you can add as many products / stores to your system without having to change database structure (which is bad anyways).
To answer some of your assumptions:
Encapsulation of data from different stores is rather selecting a subset of data that choosing different tables.
whenever you need some additional information (not being thought of in the beginning) for either stores or products, its easier to add by referencing the new table to stores/products instead of having to multiply those changes by the amount of stores.
Related
I am currently making a very simply database but haven't made one in a while.
My issue is that I have one table, Drinks, which has a column (the technical terms slips my mind) that is called ingredients. This column will be populated from two other tables, volume and ingred. I have split these tables up because there are many drinks that use the same ingredients but different volumes of them. So my question is what kind of query/relationship should I have to get the column to be correctly populated.
In your main table (Drinks) you need reference to splitted table. For example instead of ingredients field you need ingredients_id and the same for other splitted tables.
Then you can use one to many query to populate your data as you wish.
I'm building a simple way to insert customer orders into the db.
We have several products, each one needs different properties.
I've started designing the following tables:
CUSTOMER -> Order (FK to CUSTOMER) -> OrderItem (FK to Order)
Now I'm thinking How could I link product-specific tables to OrderItem.
Suppose I've two products: product1 (room_name, width, height, color) and product2 (number, width, height, type, optionals). I'd create two different tables and link them with the OrderItem, to get specific options, am I wrong? (of course there will be more than just two products)
How can I do this?
I'd have one Product table with a one-to-many relationship between OrderItem and Product. Put a FOREIGN KEY in the OrderItem table that points to its associated Product.
A design like yours would mean you'd have to add a table every time there was a new product. That would not do. You want to add products by inserting new rows.
No approach can resolve all of the issues you may be dealing with, the choice you make depends on which factor is most important to you.
Most people shirk away from having multiple tables. One reason is that you don't know how many tables you may end up with in the future. Another is that your queries may also bloat by having to join to multiple tables. And it may become a maintenance headache with multiple queries to update every time you add a table. Finally, adding a table is not even remotely as friendly as adding a record (Do you really want your App to be able to create tables?).
One option is just to add more and more fields to the Product table. By making the property fields NULLable, different products can use different fields.
But... You may then need to add logic to ensure that ProductX -always- has a value in FieldA, but that ProductY always has a value in FieldB, etc. And probably some meta-data about each product type so that your application knows which fields to use for which products. You still may need to add new fields, which is possibly tidier than adding new tables, but you still probably don't want the Application doing.
An option that totally avoids using DDL to add a product is to further normalise your data, and have the product-specific-properties in an Entity-Attribute-Value table. This is initially very attractive to many people as it is so generic and flexible.
Product(id, name, another-global-property, etc)
Product_Properties(product_id, property_id, property_value)
You'll probably have some meta-data and extra logic to ensure all the correct properties are used. But now you just add records to a generic structure whenever you create a new product.
But what type should "property value" be? It may need to hold strings, dates, numbers, anything. You could make it a string and use the meta-data to know how to CAST the value. Of you may have several value fields, one of each type, and a "field_type_id" or something to indicate which value-field should be read from.
It's also less friendly for certain searches. If you know a product_id, finding the properties is easy. If you want all products where the expiry date is in the past, you need to be careful about how you structure the data and indexes to make the query efficient. But if you want (expiry < today AND cost > 50) then you get a much different query from what you are used to - Each value is in a different ROW instead of a different FIELD.
Search performance really does begin to shrink as query complexity increases and design considerations become more technical.
Which way you go depends on application functional requirement, architecture and design decisions, and a good helpful dash of 'taste'.
You have tagged question as django. Then you should read this recent post:
Coding an inventory system, with polymorphic items and manageable item types
In this post #ThibaultJ explain how to accomplish this with Django model utils.
The idea is that you have a 'product' model and you inherit product1 and product2 from this model adding specific information for both. #ThibaultJ has posted intesting samples.
I will notice #ThibaultJ about this question. If #ThibaultJ writes an answer I will remove my post.
Here are some options
IMHO I would choose an Inheritance pattern, i.e. a new table called "ProductBase" with a unique Surrogate. Product base would have a classification e.g. "ProductType" which would then allow you to join into the appropriate 'subclass' Product table. OrderItem would reference just the Surrogate. Referential Integrity is enforcable, and it gives the opportunity for extending to additional forms of products. It does however require the use of a common unique surrogate amongst all Product table types. If there are other tables (other than OrderItem) referencing Product, it would also avoid the use of having to FK to composite keys.
Nullable Foreign Keys in OrderItem, i.e. OrderItem would have nullable FK to both (all) types of Product Tables, although only one of them would be present on each row.
By inner joining OrderItem to the appropriate Product tables would eliminate the 'wrong' product joins based on the NULLs. RI can still be enforced.
If you have the SAME type of Primary Key on all your Product subclass tables, then you could also add a single Product "Foreign" Key and a "ProductType" "Switch" on OrderItem. The problem here is that you can't enforce RI.
That said, I really wouldn't be creating a new table for each and every product - surely there are some broad 'categories' of Product which can be modelled in a uniform manner.
No doubt if you sell Aircraft and Groceries that you would probably need a AircraftProduct and a GroceryProduct, but surely A300, Boeing 747 and Cessna Skyhawk would fit as rows inside AircraftProduct, even if there are a few 'optional' nullable fields in each table not applicable to all products in this 'category'?
Edit : First see Dems and Duffmo's posts to see if you can avoid the requirement for having multiple Product tables at all, by using EAV / Multivalue / Metadata patterns to model Product.
I do have a datbase with multiple tables.
this multiple table is related to single name for example..
Table 1 contains name of the person, joined date,position,salary..etc
Table2 contains name of the person,current projects,finished,assigned...etc
Table 3 contains name of the person,time sheets,in,out,etc...
Table 4 contains name of the person,personal details,skill set,previous experiance,...etc
All table contains morethan 50000 names, and their details.
so my question is all tables contains information related to a name say Jose20856 this name is unique index of all 4 tables. when I search for Jose20856 all four table will give result and output to a front end software/html.
so do I need to keep multiple table or combined to a single table??
If so
CASE 1
Single table -> what are the advantages? will result will be faster? what about the system resource usage?
CASE 2
Multiple table ->what are the advantages? will result will be faster? what about the system resource usage?
As I am new to MySQL I would like to have your valuable opinion to move ahead
You can combine these into a single table but only if it makes sense. It's hard to tell if the relationships in your tables are one-to-one or one-to-many but seem to be one-to-many. e.g. A single employee from table 1 should be able to have multiple projects, skills, time sheets in the other tables. These are all one-to-many relationships.
So, keep the multiple table design. You also should consider using an integer-based primary key for the employee rather than the name. Use this pkey as the fkey in your other tables and you'll see performance improvement. (Also consider the amount of work you need to do if and when you want to change the name. You have to change all the names in all the tables. If you use a surrogate key, the int pkey, as suggested above, you only have to update a single row.)
Read on the web about database normalization.
E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
I think you can even add more tables to it. It all depends on the data and the relations.
Table1 = users incl. userdata
Table2 = Projects (if multiple users work on the same project)
Table3 = Linking user to projects (if multiple users work on the same project)
Table4 = Time spent? Contains the links to the user and to the project.
I think your table 4 can be merged into table 1 cause it also contains data specific to 1 user.
There is probably more you can do but as already stated it all depends and the relations.
What we're talking about here is vertical table partitioning (as opposed to horizontal table partitioning). It is a valid database design pattern, which can be useful in these cases:
There are too many columns to fit into one table. That's pretty obvious.
There are columns which are accessed relatively often, and some that are accessed relatively rarely. For example, if you very often need to display columns joined date,position,salary and columns personal details,skill set,previous experiance very rarely, then it makes sense to move these columns to separate a table, as it will (probably) improve performance in accessing those most commonly used. In MySQL this is especially true in case of TEXT and BLOB columns, since they're stored apart from the rest of the fileds, so accessing them takes more time.
There are NULLable columns, where majority of rows are NULL. Once again, if it's mostly null, moving it to a separate table will let you reduce size of your 'mani' table and improve performance. The new table should not allow null values and have entries only for rows where value is set. This way you reduce amount of storeage/memory resources as well.
MySQL specific - You might want tom move some of your columns from nnoDB table to MyISAM, so that you can use full text indexing, while still being able to use some of the features InnoDB provides. It's not a good design gnerally speaking though - it's better to use a full text search engine like Sphinx.
Last but not least. I'd suggest using a numeric field as a key joining all these tables, not a string.
Additional reading aboout MySQL partitioning (a bit outdated, since MySQL 5.5 added some new features)
The best way to describe this scenario is to use an example. Consider Netflix: do they
store their orders (DVD's they mail out) in a separate table from their member lists (NOT members table, but a joiner table of members and movies--a list of movies each member has created), or are orders distinguished by using additional information in the same row of the same table?
For those not familiar with Netflix, imagine a service that lets you create a wish list of movies. This wish list is subsequently sent to you incrementally, say two movies at a time.
I would like to implement a similar idea using a MySQL database, but I am unsure whether to create two tables (one for orders and one for lists) and dynamically move items from the lists table to the orders table (this process should be semi-automatic based on the member returning an item, where before a new one is sent out, a table with some controls will be checked to see if the user is still eligible/has not gone over his monthly limit)...
Thoughts and pros and cons would be fantastic!
EDIT: my current architecture is: member, items, members_items, what I am asking is if to store orders in the same table as members_items or create a separate table.
Moving things from one database table to another to change its status is simply bad practice. In a RDBMS, you relate rows from one table to other rows in other tables using primary and foreign key constraints.
As for your example, I see about four tables just to get started. Comparing this to Netflix, the grand-daddy of movie renting, is a far-cry from reality. Just keep that in mind.
A User table to house your members.
A Movie table that knows about all of the available movies.
A Wishlist or Queue table that has a one-to-many relationship between a User and Movies.
An Order or Rental table that maps users to the movies that are currently at home.
Statuses of the movies in the Movie table could be in yet another table where you relate a User to a Movie to a MovieStatus or something, which brings your table count to 6. To really lay this out and design it properly you may end up with even more, but hopefully this sort of gives you an idea of where to begin.
EDIT: Saw your update on exactly what you're looking for. I thought you were designing from scratch. The simple answer to your question is: have two tables. Wishlists (or member_items as you have them) and Orders (member_orders?) are fundamentally different so keeping them separated is my suggestion.
A problem with storing orders in the members table is that there's a variable number (0, 1, or several) of orders per member. The way to do this using a relational database is to have two separate tables.
I feel like they would store their movies as follows (simplified of course):
tables:
Titles
Members
Order
Order_Has_Titles
This way an order which has a foreign key to the Members would then have a pivot table as many orders could have many titles apart of them.
When you have a many to many realtionship in the database you then need to create a pivot table:
Order_Has_Titles:
ID (auto-inc)
Order_FkId (int 11)
Title_FkId (int 11)
This way you're able to put multiple movies apart of each order.
Of course this is simplified, and you would have many other components which would be apart of it, however at a basic level, you can see it here.
I am constructing a database System using Mysql, this will be an application of about 20 tables. The system contains information on farmers, we work with organic certification and need to record a lot of info for that.
In my system, there are related parent-child tables for farmers, producing years and fields/areas - it's a simple representation of the real world in which farmers farm crops on their fields.
I now need to add several status flags for each one of these levels: a farmer can be certified, or his field can be, or the specific year can be; each of these flags has several states and can occur a number of times.
The obvious solution to this would be to add a child table to every one of these tables, and define the states there.
What I wonder if there is an easier way to do this to avoid getting to many tables? Where/how would be best practise to keep that data?
What about an indicator on every table that contains data that may or may not be certified? It's easier than adding new tables.
Or, if "certification" is actually a combination of several pieces/fields of data, then have a single "certification" table, and the other tables can reference it through a foreign key (something like "certification_id", which is the key of the "certification" table).