I am new to MySQL database and I'm collaborating with my former CSCI teacher to make a student database that holds his student grades history. My original idea was to have a Students table (studentID, firstname, lastname, middlename, gender), a Course table (courseID, course_description), a Grades table (studentID, courseID, year, final_grade), and then tables for AssignmentScores, TestScores, QuizScores, and ExerciseScores. Each of these tables would of course have a studentID, courseID, year, and section (code used by the school to define the semester and period) field, along with the scores earned by the students.
The problem with this approach is that in a perfect world, all courses would have the same number of assignments, exercises, tests, and quizes, and they all would have the same point value, however, as we all know, this is not a perfect world. For instance, there are a couple of courses that have assignments labeled 1a, and 1b both worth five points each as opposed to the normal 10 points each for 10 assignments (labeled 1 through 10). This is also the first year he started keeping track of exercises, and all classes do not have the same number of exercises, nor are they always worth the same point value.
In order to allow for flexibility, we decided to make a table containing general course information with a courseID, year, section, type (to designate quiz, assignment, test, or exercise), number (1a, 1b, or 1,2,3 etc...), and a maxpoints field (to hold the max point value per item). We would then also have a table for individual scores which would have basically the same fields but instead of max points there would an earnedpoints field (to hold the students scores on a particular item). He would then of course have to enter every courses details, every year, regardless of if it was different then the previous year's.
For the two courses he is currently teaching, that amounts to 90 rows per table with much of the data seemingly redundant.
Doing it this way seems to have a lot of redundant information, but I don't see any other way that allows for past, present, or future flexibility. One of the reasons I am doing this project is in hopes of using it to show prospective employers and I thought the point of a relational database was to minimize redundant information, and I don't want prospective employers to look at this and say, "what an idiot."
So my question to the stackoverflow community is, "is there a better way to do this?"
Related
For our project we want to save employees and customer in one or two database tables.
The customers have the same columns as the employees (e.g. name, address, language, email,...).
The employees on the other side do have additional columns like SocialSecurity Number, bankaccount,...
Since the two have many similar columns it might be senseful to merge them into a single 'person' table, considering that there might be from time to time a case where a customer get an employee or vice versa.
But since in the application this two 'roles' of people are strictly separated (we have querys where we want to get all customers and querys to get all employees, or search a person by email where role is customer / employee), then it might be more performant to keep them seperate.
Is there a big performance difference between this two solutions or is there even a third & better one?
I would not make this decision based on performance. I would make the decision based on security considerations and access rules.
In almost all circumstances I can think of, you would want separate tables for customers and employees. You could have a third table, persons, for common attributes such as names and addresses. That said, there are so many differences between the two, that I'm not even sure that is a good idea:
Customers could be incorporated entities such as companies.
Customers could be from anywhere in the world, but it is reasonable in many situations to assume that employees are local.
Employees have dependents.
You may maintain information such as gender, race, and age that you would not want to maintain about customers.
Those are just a few items that immediately come to mind. There are many other differences.
I am currently designing a database in mariaDb that will be used in a Meteor app (woth sequelize orm) for tracking the attendance of students in a school.
I'm not sure is the most effective way as there are few exceptions on my case:
teachers can move and reorganise their schedule as they please, and also because the student pay for each lesson (and certain type of absence), I can't use a "exclusion way" (eg only record absence, so no record = present)
the most important query needed is attendance per student, and I need to have it every time I open my app for every student.
second most important is a monthly attendance per teacher. (This one is needed on demand)
(not db related) I need to track the students presence by groups of 10 (every lessons they have to pay again)
The estimated starting size is 20 teachers, 250 students, 500 attendance/week, (every student has two lessons) 37 weeks,( max size double students and lessons).
Is running 250 queries (find) on a 20000row table time consuming?
Is on student table having a lesson_counter field that is updated every time an attendance is recorded a good idea?
Many thanks!
UPDATE:
there is a possible optimization to be made? This should represent a base for a possible email and invoice system both towards students and teachers
There are many possible improvements to your design. Let me start by answering your specific questions:
Is running 250 queries (find) on a 20000row table time consuming?
No. On modern hardware, querying 20.000 rows is going to be fast. If you have a decent indexing strategy, the queries should return in 10s of milliseconds.
Is on student table having a lesson_counter field that is updated
every time an attendance is recorded a good idea?
No, it's a bad idea - on the assumption that you want a report for each student showing when they attended or missed a lesson, you have to store that data anyway. Keeping a counter is duplicating that information.
I suggest a design like the following.
An "attendance" and "absence" are logically separate things; you can model them in a single table with a flag. I've modeled them separately because I see them as different things in the business domain, with different attributes (absence has a reason code), and potentially different behaviour (for instance, an absence might have a workflow for sending an email). I prefer to have things that are logically separate in separate tables.
Student
-------
student_id
name
...
Lesson
------
lesson_id
subject
teacher_id (if only one teacher can teach a lesson)
....
enrollment
---------
lesson_id
student_id
start_datetime (or you might have the concept of "term")
end_datetime
lesson_session
-------
lesson_session_id
lesson_id
start_datetime
end_datetime
location
teacher_id (in case more than one teacher can teach a lesson)
attendance
--------
lesson_session_id
student_id
absence
------------
lesson_session_id
student_id
reason (or might be a foreign key to reasons table)
I have these set of requirement:
For each school, the system needs to keep track of its unique name, address, classification (Value could be Elementary, Middle, or High), and number of students studying in it.
For each School System Employee, we need to keep track of the unique employee number, full name, address, salary, and the school where (s)he works. An individual works only in one school.
For each student, we keep track of the student’s name (at times, we need to refer to student’s first name, middle initial, and last name individually), address (at times, we need to refer to the street address, city, state, and zip code individually), the school (s)he attends, and what grade (s)he is in.
The system sends letters to High School students frequently, and hence, needs to keep track of each High School student along with the year when (s)he enrolled in the High School.
A system-wide list of courses offered is kept. Information about a course consists of its unique number, unique title, and number of credits.
For each school, the information about which courses are taught there is kept.
For each student, we keep a grade report that provides the grade (Value could be A, B, C, D, or F) for the student for a specific course.
The School System owns buses which are identified uniquely by their registration numbers. Some students take them to commute between their home and their school, while others use their personal means to commute. We keep track of which student takes which bus to commute. We also keep track of drivers assigned to buses (a driver is a school system employee who could be assigned to multiple buses, and a bus could have multiple drivers assigned to it – consider this a weekly assignment of buses and drivers).
Here is my attempt at the ER design:
This is my first ER design and i just wanted to know if met all the requirements and if I did it correctly? Any help will be much appreciated! Thanks!
First of all I don't like it to omit columns necessary for forein keys, e.g. a school ID in the employee table. But I don't know enough about ER diagrams to say if that would even be allowed.
The diagram looks fine to me. Some points though:
School names can change. If there is a number system available (such as NCES School ID for USA) I'd make this the PK instead.
Numbers of students must be no column in the school table; the number of students per school is implicitly given by the students related to the school.
I don't like 1:1 relations very much. Student <-> High Schooler is okay, but I'd rather have the enrollment date in the students table.
StudentID alone can't possible the PK for the grades table. It must be StudentID + Course# instead.
The line from student to course is superfluous, because the relation is given by the grades table already (which is a bridge table containing StudentID, Course# and an optional grade).
The course table's PK must not be Course# + Title, because that would mean the same course number would be allowed in combination with different titles. The PK should be the course number alone. As to the relation: I don't know if the same course can be taught at different schools. If so, the relations are correct.
Met. (though I'd break appart address into # StreetAddress, PO Box, city, state zip etc.(assuming US) Though if you want extra credit you could subtype addresses into their own table and simply have the employee, student and school addresses all in one table with a foreign key...
I'd break down Name, address just as habbit always go to
the loweest common denominator: Fname, LName, etc... (for scaling
solutions long term; combining data is easy, breaking it out later
is hard)
Looks good
Doesn't grade define Highschool? a 9th
grader is in highschool right? so why a seperate table?
4.1) now a table which lists what letters were sent to what students might be useful... but they didn't say they needed this so I'd seek clarification on the requirement.
if # is unique title doens't need to be part
of key.
Missing (you need a schoolCourses table)
Missing (I guess could be handled through your grade table though) Id call the table studentcourses and keep grade on the table... then yeah it works.
Associative/Junction table between bus/student and bus/employee
needed
Overall many-to-many need to be resolved as part of modeling. and I agree with Thorsten, I want to see all fields in all tables including the FK's and I've done enough to know the CASE tools allow it.
and while 1-1 relationships look good for 4/5th normal form. they generally are not practical anymore unless the truely represent a separate concept. So I may have a vehicle table for a vehicle database but I may also have a table for car attributes vs motorcycle attributes vs truck vs boat etc... but vehicle is the primary in this case there so little reason to separate out high school I just don't see the long term value of keeping the object separate (but maybe I just lack vision).
You'll learn that in ERD's the cardinality of the relationships between the data is THE MOST IMPORTANT (following datatype/size/scale precsion). Eliminating M-M relationships is a must. and everything really boils down to 1-M or 1-1 when your done.
Not sure what the line between the school/bus implies.... the buses are owned by the whole system... maybe you need a "System" table tie that to the schools and buses to the system. that way if you support multiple school systems you know which buses belong to what system and what schools are in what system...
You set up a database company, ArtBase, that builds a product for art galleries. The core of this product is a database with a schema
that captures all the information that galleries need to maintain.
Galleries keep information about artists, their names (which are
unique), birthplaces, age, and style of art.
For each piece of artwork, the artist, the year it was made, its
unique title, its type of art (e.g., painting, lithograph, sculpture,
photograph), and its price must be stored.
Pieces of artwork are also classified into groups of various kinds,
for example, portraits, still lifes, works by Picasso, or works of the
19th century; a given piece may belong to more than one group. Each
group is identified by a name (like those just given) that describes
the group.
Finally, galleries keep information about customers. For each
customer, galleries keep that person’s unique name, address, total
amount of dollars spent in the gallery (very important!), and the
artists and groups of art that the customer tends to like.
Draw the ER diagram for the database.
Is the following ERD correct?
Is it possible that a group has zero Artworks?
Is it possible that the Artist didn't produce any artwork but still sits in the database?
1) You used ID as a PK in Artist and Artwork. This is a good thing as the use of an unique name (as requested in the business model) is wrong: after all, two pieces of art or two artists may bear the same name. However, you did respect the business model for the Customer entity whose PK is Name.
You can choose to make a good ERD and use ID as a surrogate PK for Artwork, Artist, and Customer; or respect the business model you were given and use Name as a PK for these three entities. Personally, I'd go with the former.
The following two questions can't be answered given the business model only; the answers below reflect the cardinality in the specific ERD you designed.
2) Yes, because according to the ERD a Group includes from 0 to N Artworks;
3) Yes, because according to the ERD although an Artist makes from 1 to N Artworks (and therefore there wouldn't be the need to insert an Artist in the database if he didn't do any Artwork) there is still a relationship between Customer and Artist in the sense that a Customer likes from 1 to N Artists.
Therefore an Artist can be in the database even if he didn't produce any Artwork (yet), provided that he is liked by at least one Customer. If an Artist didn't do any Artwork and is not liked by any Customer, he won't be in the database.
Missing some context information here, especialy some cadinality information. Pay attention to yourself asking questions about the context:
Is it possible that a group has zero Artworks?
Is it possible that the Artist didn't produce any artwork but still
sits in the database?
This information should be given by you (or by the presenting problem). If this is a work of your course or your college, your instructor needs to better explain the present context. If you are already working as a DBA or data modeler, please look for more information about this problem. It's almost indescribable the importance of a context in the development of an ER-Diagram. Keep this in mind: Without a well-defined context, the problem (the situation) is uncertain, and so is missing information to complete the reflection of a real-world situation. In short:
No complete context, no diagram (without a diagram, there is no system!).
I will make this diagram with you step-by-step, but I'll take some assumptions due to lack of information (context) here. I will give my opinion on certain resources used in ER-Diagram, but that does not mean that I'm saying you're layman. I am just showing my thought, which shows how I learned that here in my country. I believe that you are as capable as I am, ok? Well, let's begin...
Entities in ER-Diagram are defined when we have attributes / properties. According to your description, we can see immediately 3 entities here:
Customers
Artists
Artworks
Relationships exists to express links between entities. The most obvious relationship here is between Artists and Artworks, Don't you agree?
For each piece of artwork, the artist...
In accordance with the context revealed, all artwork has a unique artist (always), but it is uncertain if an artist always has one, multiple, or zero artworks. I SUPPOSE that an artist can have many or no artwork. That being said, we see that artists to artworks have a cardinality 0 to N, because, again, an artist may have made several or no artwork at all.
So far we have defined three entities, and linked two of them. Let's continue...
...its type of art (e.g., painting, lithograph, sculpture, photograph)...
If an artwork has only a single type of art, and an art type is defined only by its name, then we have here what is called a Functional Redundancy (translated from the Portuguese term "Redundância Funcional"). In spit summary, Functional Redundancies are like relationships between two entities, and serve to save you the trouble of repeating the same field in multiple columns in a table (which would be susceptible to errors). In a Conceptual Model, they are represented as a field in an entity with the suffix "(R)" (without the double-quotes).
If an entity has a field (column) like a Functional Redundancy, but with different values (multiple), then we have what is called Multivalued Field (also translated from the Portuguese term "Campo Multivalorado"). These are fields in entities that have the suffix "*" (also without the double-quotes).
This is not the case of the type of artwork, but it would until now for the groups of each artwork:
Pieces of artwork are also classified into groups of various kinds,
for example, portraits, still lifes, works by Picasso, or works of the
19th century; a given piece may belong to more than one group.
This would be true if groups only possess names, and no other entity relate to them. But then you said:
and groups of art that the customer tends to like.
This has changed things a bit. Groups no longer is a Multivalued Field in Artworks entity and becomes an entity with two relationships, one for Customers and one for Artworks. The relationship between Groups and Customers reveals the preferred art groups by customers. The relationship between groups and artworks shows which art groups a artwork is related. Now let's talk about the cardinalities of these relationships.
...a given piece may belong to more than one group. [...]
...and groups of art that the customer tends to like. [...]
Concerning Groups and Artworks, the word "may" says a lot to me. It says that something may or may not be effective. Still, it is uncertain whether an artwork can exist without at least one related group. Because of this, I see a 1 to N relationship from Artworks to Groups.
Conversely, the opposite process is not clear. I believe that there may be groups unrelated to artworks, perhaps because they are new groups created in a given time. So I see a relationship of 0 to N from Groups to Artworks.
Let's talk about Groups and Customers. It seems to me that a customer like at least one group of art. So I see a 1 to N relationship from Customers to Groups.On the opposite side, as already said, it would be possible to add new groups without automatically tying at least one customer to it. I think there may be new groups unrelated to customers. So guess what? We have a relationship of 0 to N from Customers to Groups.
So far we have identified another entity, a Functional Redundancy,
and two relationships with their respective cardinalities. Let's keep going...
and the artists ... that the customer tends to like.
There is a close connection here between two entities, Customers, and Artists. This relationship tells us what artists the customers like. If a customer must like at least one artist, then we have a 1 to N relationship from Customers to Artists. If a customer may or may not like an artist, then we have a relationship 0 to N.
If an artist has zero or more customers who appreciate it, then we have a relationship 0 to N from Artists to Customers. If an artist has at least one client who appreciates it's work, then we have a 1 to N relationship from Artists to Customers.
Lastly...
Galleries keep information about artists, [...] and style of art.
If multiple artists can share a single same art style, then we have a Functional Redundancy here. If several artists have various art styles, then we have a Multivalued Field.
After much talk, I came up with an ER-Diagram presented by your context and assumptions made by me:
NOTE: The green points highlights major assumptions.
Is this right? Is this the correct diagram? The correct answer would be (from me to you):
I do not know...
Without a concrete context, we can not finalize a diagram correctly. My tip is that you finish your context. Only then you will have a correct diagram.
Oh, one more thing. What would be this "money spent" attribute? If customers can buy artworks, it would represent a new relationship between Artworks and Customers. This relationship would represent the purchase of artworks from customers (called "ORDERS", for instance). If not so, skip this paragraph.
If I have forgotten something, please say so. If you have questions feel free to ask, I'm here to help you.
My question is more of trying to understand what and how I can get something done. Here's the thing:
I got a job to build this application for a school to manage student bio data, work-out and handle student information and basic finance management.
Based on requirements I got from meets with my client, I have an ERD of a proposed MySQL Database with 23 different tables. The one part I would like to understand quickly is displaying data based on school terms. There are 3 terms in a year, each with its own summaries at the end of each term. At the end of 3 terms, a year has gone by and a student is promoted or demoted.
So my question is, how can I render my data to show 3 different terms and also to create a new year working out how to either promote a student or make the student repeat the class its in?
23 different tables? I'd like to see that model.
I don't think you should have one table per term. You'll have to keep adding tables every term, every year.
Sounds like a transcript table should have term and year columns that are incremented or decremented as a student progresses through. It should also have a foreign key relationship with its student: it's a 1:1 between a student and their transcript.
I would have a separate transcript table because I'd prefer keeping it separate from basic personal information about a student. A transcript would refer to the courses taken each term, the grade received for each, and calculate overall progress. If I queried for the transcript for an individual student, I should be able to see every year, every term, every course, every grade in reverse chronological order.