I have three tables, tbl_school, tbl_courses and tbl_branches.
Each course can be taught in one or more branches of a school.
tbl_school has got:
id
school_name
total_branches
...
tbl_courses:
id
school_id
course_title
....
tbl_branches:
id
school_id
city
area
address
When I want to list all the branches of a school, it is a pretty straight forward JOIN.
However, each course will be taught in one or more branches or all the branches of the school and I need to store this information. Since there is a one-to-many relationship between tbl_courses and tbl_branches, I will have to create a new relationship table that maps each course record to it's respective branches.
When my users want to filter a course by city or area, this relationship table will be used.
I would like to know if this is the right approach or is there something better for my problem?
I was planning to store a JSON of branches of courses which would eliminate the relationship table and query would be much easier to find the city or area pattern in JSON string.
I am new to design patterns so kindly bear with me.
Issues
The table description you have given has a few errors, which need to be corrected first, after which my proposal will make more sense.
The use of a table prefix, especially tbl_, is incorrect. All the tables are tbl_s. If you do use a prefix, it is to group tables by Subject Area. Further, SQL allows a table qualifier when referring to any table in the code:
`... WHERE table_name.column_name = "something" ...
If you would like some advice re Naming Convention, please review this Answer.
Use singular, because the table name is supposed to refer to a row (relation), not to the content (we know it contains many rows). Then all the English used re the table_name makes sense. (Eg. refer my Predicates.)
You have some incorrect or extraneous columns. It is easier to give you a Data Model, than to explain each item. A couple of items do need explanation:
school.total_branches is a duplicate, because that value can easily be derived (by COUNT() of the Branches). It breaks Normalisation rules, and introduces an Update Anomaly, which can get "out of synch".
course.school_id is incorrect, given that each Branch may or may not teach a Course. That relation is 1 Course to many Branches, it should be in the new table you are contemplating.
By JSON, if you mean construct an array on the client instead of keeping the relations in the database, then no, definitely not. Data and relationships to data, should be implemented in the database. For many reasons, the most important of which is Integrity. Following that, you may easily drag it into the client, and keep it there for stream-performance purposes.
The table you are thinking about is an Associative Table, an ordinary Relational construct to relate ("map", "link") two parent tables, here Courses to Branches.
Data duplication is not prevented. Refer to the Keys is the Data Model.
ID columns you have do not provide row uniqueness, which the Relational Model demands. If that is not clear to you please read this Answer.
Solution
Here is the model.
Proposed School Data Model
Please review and comment.
I need to ensure that you understand the notation in IDEF1X models, that unlike non-standard diagrams: every little notch, tick and line means something very specific. If not, please got to the IDEF1X Notation link at the bottom right of the model.
Please check the Predicates carefully, they (a) explain the model, and (b) are used to verify it. It is a feedback loop. They have two separate benefits.
If you would like more information on Predicates, why they are relevant, please go to this Answer and read the Predicate section.
If you wish to thoroughly understand Predicates, with a view to understanding Data Modelling, consider that Data Model (latest version is linked at the top of the Answer) against those Predicates. Ie. see if you understand a database that you have never seen before, via the model plus Predicates.
The Relational Keys I have given provide the row uniqueness that is required for Relational databases, duplicate data must be prevented. Note that ID columns are simply not needed. The Relational Keys provide:
Data Integrity
Relational access to data (notice the ease of, and unlimited, joins)
Relational speed
None of which a Record Filing System (characterised by ID columns) has.
Column description:
I have implemented two address_lines. Obviously, that should not include city because that is a separate column.
I presume area means something like borough or county or the area that the school branch operates in. If it is a fixed geographic administrative region (my first two descriptors) then it requires a formal structure. If not (my third descriptor), ie. it is loose, or (eg) it spans counties, then a simple Lookup table is enough.
If you use formal administrative regions, then city must move into that structure.
Your approach with an additional table seems the simplest and most straightforward to me. I would not mix JSON in this.
Related
Below, I explain a basic design for a database I am working on. As I am not a DB, I am concerned if I am on a good track or a bad one so I wanted to float this on stack for some advice. I was not able to find a similar discussion that fit's my design.
In my database, every table is considered an entity. An Entity could be a customer account, a person, a user, a set of employee information, contractor information, a truck, a plane, a product, a support ticket, etc etc. Here are my current entities (Tables)...
People
Users
Accounts
AccountUsers
Addresses
Employee Information
Contractor Information
And to store information about these Entities I have two tables:
Entity Tables
-EntityType
-> EntityTypeID (INT)
-Entities
-> EntityID (BIGINT)
-> EnitityType (INT) : foreign key
Every table I have made has an Auto Generated primary key, and a foreign key on an entityID column to the entities table.
In the entities table I have some shared fields like,
DateCreated
DateModified
User_Created
User_Modified
IsDeleted
CanUIDelete
I use triggers on all of the table's to automatically create their entity entry with the correct entity type on inserts. And update triggers update the LastModified date.
From an application layer point of view, all the code has to do is worry about the individual entities (except for the USER_Modified/User_Created fields "it does updates on that" by joining on the entityID)
Now the reason for the entities table, is down the line I plan on having an EAV model, so every entity type can be extended with custom fields. It also serves as a decent place to store metadata about the entities (like the created/modified fields).
I'm just new to DB design, and want a 2nd opinion.
I plan on having an EAV model, so every entity type can be extended with custom fields.
Why? Do all your entities require to be extensible in this way? Probably not -- in most applications there are one or two entities at most that would benefit from this level of flexibility. The other entities actually benefit from the stability and clarity of not changing all the time.
EAV is an example of the Inner-Platform Effect:
The Inner-Platform Effect is a result of designing a system to be so customizable that it ends becoming a poor replica of the platform it was designed with.
In other words, now it's your responsibility to write application code to do all the things that a proper RDBMS already provides, like constraints and data types. Even something as simple as making a column mandatory like NOT NULL doesn't work in EAV.
It's true sometimes a project requires a lot of tables. But you're fooling yourself if you think you have simplified the project by making just two tables. You will still have just as many distinct Entities as you would have had tables, but now it's up to you to keep them from turning into a pile of rubbish.
Before you invest too much time into EAV, read this story about a company that nearly ceased to function because someone tried to make their data repository arbitrarily flexible: Bad CaRMa.
I also wrote more about EAV in a blog post, EAV FAIL, and in a chapter of my book, SQL Antipatterns Volume 1: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming.
You haven't really given a design. If you had given a description of tables, the application-oriented criterion for when a row goes in of each them and consequent constraints including keys, fks etc for the part of your application involving your entities then you would have given part of a design. In other words, if you had given that part's straightforward relational design. (Just because you're not implementing it that way doesn't mean you don't need to design properly.) Notice that this must include application-level state and functionality for "extending with custom fields". But then you have to give a description of tables, the criterion for when a row goes in each of them and consequent constraints including keys, fks etc for the part of your implementation that encodes the previous part via EAV, plus operators for manipulating them. In other words, if you had given that part's straightforward relational design. The part of your design that is implementing a DBMS. Then you would really have given a design.
The notion that one needs to use EAV "so every entity type can be extended with custom fields" is mistaken. Just implement via calls that update metadata tables sometimes instead of just updating regular tables: DDL instead of DML.
I’m developing a database. I’d appreciate some help restructuring 2 to 3 tables so the database is both compliant with the first 3 normal forms; and practical to use and to expand on / add to in the future. I want to invest time now to reduce effort / and confusion later.
PREAMBLE
Please be aware that I'm both a nube, and an amateur, though I have a certain amount of experience and skill and an abundance of enthusiasm!
BACKGROUND TO PROJECT
I am writing a small (though ambitious!) web application (using PHP and AJAX to a MySQL database). It is essentially an inventory management system, for recording and viewing the current location of each individual piece of equipment, and its maintenance history. If relevant, transactions will be very low (probably less than 100 a day, but with a possibility of simultaneous connections / operations). Row count will also be very low (maybe a few thousand).
It will deal with many completely different categories of equipment, eg bikes and lamps (to take random examples). Each unit of equipment will have its details or specifications recorded in the database. For a bike, an important specification might be frame colour, whereas a lamp it might require information regarding lampshade material.
Since the categories of equipment have so little in common, I think the most logical way to store the information is 1 table per category. That way, each category can have columns specific to that category.
I intend to store a list of categories in a separate table. Each category will have an id which is unique to that category. (Depending on the final design, this may function as a lookup table and / or as a table to run queries against.) There are likely to be very few categories (perhaps 10 to 20), unless the system is particulary succesful and it expands.
A list of bikes will be held in the bikes table.
Each bike will have an id which is unique to that bike (eg bike 0001).
But the same id will exist in the lamp table (ie lamp 0001).
With my application, I want the user to select (from a dropdown list) the category type (eg bike).
They will then enter the object's numeric id (eg 0001).
The combination of these two ids is sufficient information to uniquely identify an object.
Images:
Current Table Design
Proposed Additional Table
PROBLEM
My gut feeling is that there should be an “overarching table” that encompasses every single article of equipment no matter what category it comes from. This would be far simpler to query against than god knows how many mini tables. But when I try to construct it, it seems like it will break various normal forms. Eg introducing redundancy, possibility of inconsistency, referential integrity problems etc. It also begins to look like a domain table.
Perhaps the overarching table should be a query or view rather than an entity?
Could you please have a look at the screenshots and let me know your opinion. Thanks.
For various reasons, I’d prefer to use surrogate keys rather than natural keys if possible. Ideally, I’d prefer to have that surrogate key in a single column.
Currently, the bike (or lamp) table uses just the first column as its primary key. Should I expand this to a composite key including the Equipment_Category_ID column too? Then make the Equipment_Article table into a view joining on these two columns (iteratively for each equipment category). Optionally Bike_ID and Lamp_ID columns could be renamed to something generic like Equipment_Article_ID. This might make the query simpler, but is there a risk of losing specificity? It would / could still be qualified by the table name.
Speaking of redundancy, the Equipment_Category_ID in the current lamp or bike tables seems a bit redundant (if every item / row in that table has the same value in that column).
It all still sounds messy! But surely this must be very common problem for eg online electronics stores, rental shops, etc. Hopefully someone will say oh that old chestnut! Fingers crossed! Sorry for not being concise, but I couldn't work out what bits to leave out. Most of it seems relevant, if a bit chatty. Thanks in advance.
UPDATE 27/03/2014 (Reply to #ElliotSchmelliot)
Hi Elliot.
Thanks for you reply and for pointing me in the right direction. I studied OOP (in Java) but wasn't aware that something similar was possible in SQL. I read the link you sent with interest, and the rest of the site/book looks like a great resource.
Does MySQL InnoDB Support Specialization & Generalization?
Unfortunately, after 3 hours searching and reading, I still can't find the answer to this question. Keywords I'm searching with include: MySQL + (inheritance | EER | specialization | generalization | parent | child | class | subclass). The only positive result I found is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_entity%E2%80%93relationship_model. It mentions MySQL Workbench.
Possible Redundancy of Equipment_Category (Table 3)
Yes and No. Because this is a lookup table, it currently has a function. However because every item in the Lamp or the Bike table is of the same category, the column itself may be redundant; and if it is then the Equipment_Category table may be redundant... unless it is required elsewhere. I had intended to use it as the RowSource / OptionList for a webform dropdown. Would it not also be handy to have Equipment_Category as a column in the proposed Equipment parent table. Without it, how would one return a list of all Equipment_Names for the Lamp category (ignoring distinct for the moment).
Implementation
I have no way of knowing what new categories of equipment may need to be added in future, so I’ll have to limit attributes included in the superclass / parent to those I am 100% sure would be common to all (or allow nulls I suppose); sacrificing duplication in many child tables for increased flexibility and hopefully simpler maintenance in the long run. This is particulary important as we will not have professional IT support for this project.
Changes really do have to be automated. So I like the idea of the stored procedure. And the CreateBike example sounds familiar (in principle if not in syntax) to creating an instance of a class in Java.
Lots to think about and to teach myself! If you have any other comments, suggestions etc, they'd be most welcome. And, could you let me know what software you used to create your UML diagram. Its styling is much better than those that I've used.
Cheers!
You sound very interested in this project, which is always awesome to see!
I have a few suggestions for your database schema:
You have individual tables for each Equipment entity i.e. Bike or Lamp. Yet you also have an Equipment_Category table, purely for identifying a row in the Bike table as a Bike or a row in the Lamp table as a Lamp. This seems a bit redundant. I would assume that each row of data in the Bike table represents a Bike, so why even bother with the category table?
You mentioned that your "gut" feeling is telling you to go for an overarching table for all Equipment. Are you familiar with the practice of generalization and specialization in database design? What you are looking for here is specialization (also called "top-down".) I think it would be a great idea to have an overarching or "parent" table that represents Equipment. Then, each sub-entity such as Bike or Lamp would be a child table of Equipment. A parent table only has the fields that all child tables share.
With these suggestions in mind, here is how I might alter your schema:
In the above schema, everything starts as Equipment. However, each Equipment can be specialized into Lamp, Bike, etc. The Equipment entity has all of the common fields. Lamp and Bike each have fields specific to their own type. When creating an entity, you first create the Equipment, then you create the specialized entity. For example, say we are adding the "BMX 200 Ultra" bike. We first create a record in the Equipment table with the generic information (equipmentName, dateOfPurchase, etc.) Then we create the specialized record, in this case a Bike record with any additional bike-specific fields (wheelType, frameColor, etc.) When creating the specialized entities, we need to make sure to link them back to the parent. This is why both the Lamp and Bike entities have a foreign key for equipmentID.
An easy and effective way to add specialized entities is to create a stored procedure. For example, lets say we have a stored procedure called CreateBike that takes in parameters bikeName, dateOfPurchase, wheelType, and frameColor. The stored procedure knows we are creating a Bike, and therefore can easily create the Equipment record, insert the generic equipment data, create the bike record, insert the specialized bike data, and maintain the foreign key relationship.
Using specialization will make your transactional life very simple. For example, if you want all Equipment purchased before 1/1/14, no joins are needed. If you want all Bikes with a frameColor of blue, no joins are needed. If you want all Lamps made of felt, no joins are needed. The only time you will need to join a specialized table back to the Equipment table is if you want data both from the parent entity and the specialized entity. For example, show all Lamps that use 100 Watt bulbs and are named "Super Lamp."
Hope this helps and best of luck!
Edit
Specialization and Generalization, as mentioned in your provided source, is part of an Enhanced Entity Relationship (EER) which helps define a conceptual data model for your schema. As such, it does not need to be "supported" per say, it is more of a design technique. Therefore any database schema naturally supports specialization and generalization as long as the designer implements it.
As far as your Equipment_Category table goes, I see where you are coming from. It would indeed make it easy to have a dropdown of all categories. However, you could simply have a static table (only contains Strings that represent each category) to help with this population, and still keep your Equipment tables separate. You mentioned there will only be around 10-20 categories, so I see no reason to have a bridge between Equipment and Equipment_Category. The fewer joins the better. Another option would be to include an "equipmentCategory" field in the Equipment table instead of having a whole table for it. Then you could simply query for all unique equipmentCategory values.
I agree that you will want to keep your Equipment table to guaranteed common values between all children. Definitely. If things get too complicated and you need more defined entities, you could always break entities up again down the road. For example maybe half of your Bike entities are RoadBikes and the other half are MountainBikes. You could always continue the specialization break down to better get at those unique fields.
Stored Procedures are great for automating common queries. On top of that, parametrization provides an extra level of defense against security threats such as SQL injections.
I use SQL Server. The diagram I created is straight out of SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS). You can simply expand a database, right click on the Database Diagrams folder, and create a new diagram with your selected tables. SSMS does the rest for you. If you don't have access to SSMS I might suggest trying out Microsoft Visio or if you have access to it, Visual Paradigm.
I just started making a database for my website so I am re-reading Database Systems - Design, Implementation and Management (9th Edition)but i notice there is no single step by step process described in the book to create a well organized and normalized database. The book seems to be a little all over the place and although the normalization process is all in one place the steps leading up to it are not.
I thought it be very usefull to have all the steps in one list but i cannot find anything like that online or anywhere else. I realize the answerer explaining all of the steps would be quite an extensive one but anything i can get on this subject will be greatly appreciated; including the order of instructions before normalization and links with suggestions.
Although i am semi familiar with the process i took a long break (about 1 year) from designing any databases so i would like everything described in detail.
I am especially interested in:
Whats a good approach to begin modeling a database (or how to list business rules so its not confusing)
I would like to use ER or EER (extended entity relationship model) and I would like to know
how to model subtypes and supertypes correctly using EER(disjoint and overlapping) (as well as writing down the business rules for it so you know that its a subtype if there is any common way of doing that)
(I allready am familiar with the normalization process but an answer can include tips about it as well)
Still need help with:
Writing down business rules (including business rules for subtypes and super types in EER)
How to use subtypes and super-types in EER correctly (how to model them)
Any other suggestions will be appreciated.
I would recommend you this videos (about 9) about E/R modeling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1GaaGHHAqM
EDIT:
"how extensive must the diagrams for this model be ? must they include all the entities and attributes?? "
Yes, actually you have ER modeling and extend ER modeling,
The idea is to make the Extended ER modeling, because there you not only specify the entities, you also specify the PK and FK and the cardinality. Take a look to this link (see the graphics and the difference between both models).
there are two ways of modeling, one is the real scenario and the other one is the real structure of the DB, I.E:
When you create a E-ER Modeling you create even the relationship and cardinality for ALL entities, but when you are going to create the DB is not necessary to create relations with cardinality 1:N(The table with cardinality N create a FK from table with card. 1, and you don't need to create the relation Table into the DB) or when you have a 1:1 cardinality you know that one of your entities can absorb the other entity.
look this Graphic , only the N:M relations entities were create (when you see 2 or more FK, that's a relation table)
But remember those are just "rules" and you can break it if your design need to, for performance, security, etc.
about tools, there are a lot of them, But I recommended workbench, because you can use it to connect to your DBs (if you are in mysql) and create designs E/R modeling, with attributes, and he will auto-create the relations tables N:M.
EDIT 2:
here I put some links that can explain that a little bit better, it will take a lot of lines and will be harder to explain here and by myself, please review this links and let me know if you have questions:
type and subtype:
http://www.siue.edu/~dbock/cmis450/4-eermodel.htm
business rules (integrity constrain)
http://www.deeptraining.com/litwin/dbdesign/FundamentalsOfRelationalDatabaseDesign.aspx (please take a look specially to this one, I think it will help you with all this info)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=database%20design%20integrity%20constraints&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcs-people.bu.edu%2Frkothuri%2Flect12-constraints.ppt&ei=2aLDT-X4Koyi8gTKhZWnCw&usg=AFQjCNEvXGr7MurxM-YCT0-rU0htqt6yuA&cad=rja
I have reread the book and some articles online and have created a short list of steps in order to design a decent database (of course you need to understand the basics of database design first) Steps are described in greater detail below:
(A lot of steps are described in the book: Database Systems - Design, Implementation and Management (9th Edition) and thats what the page numbers are refering too but i will try to describe as much as I can here and will edit this answer in the following days to make it more complete)
Create a detailed narrative of the organization’s description of operations.
Identify the business rules based from the description of operations.
Identify the main entities and relationships from the business rules.
Translate entities/relationships to EER model
Check naming conventions
Map ERR model to logical model (pg 400)*
Normalize logical model (pg 179)
Improve DB design (pg 187)
Validate Logical Model Integrity Constraints (pg 402) (like length etc.)
Validate the Logical Model against User Requirements
Translate tables to mySQL code (in workbench translate EER to SQL file using export function then to mySQL)
*you can possibly skip this step if you using workbench and work of the ER model that you design there.
1. Describe the workings company in great detail. If you are creating personal project describe it in detail if you are working with a company ask for documents describing their company as well as interviewing the employees for information (interviews might generate inconsistent information make sure to check with supervisers which information is more important for design)
2. Look at the gathered information and start generating rules from them make sure to fill in any information gaps in your knowledge. Confirm with supervisers in the company before moving on.
3. Identify the main entities and relationships from the business rules. Keep in mind that during the design process, the database designer does not depend simply on interviews to help define entities, attributes, and relationships. A surprising amount of information can be gathered by examining the business forms and reports that an organization uses in its daily operations. (pg 123)
4. If the database is complex you can break down the ERD design into followig substeps
i) Create External Models (pg 46)
ii) Combine External Models to form Conceptual Model (pg 48)
Follow the following recursive steps for the design (or for each substep)
I. Develop the initial ERD.
II. Identify the attributes and primary keys that adequately describe the entities.
III. Revise and review the ERD.
IV. Repeat steps until satisfactory output
You may also use entity clustering to further simplify your design process.
Describing database through ERD:
Use solid lines to connect Weak Entities (Weak entities are those which cannot exist without parent entity and contain parents PK in their PK).
Use dashed lines to connect Strong Entities (Strong entities are those which can exist independently of any other entity)
5. Check if your names follow your naming conventions. I used to have suggestions for naming conventions here but people didn't really like them. I suggest following your own standards or looking up some naming conventions online. Please post a comment if you found some naming conventions that are very useful.
6.
Logical design generally involves translating the ER model into a set of relations (tables), columns, and constraints definitions.
Translate the ER to logical model using these steps:
Map strong entities (entities that dont need other entities to exist)
Map supertype/subtype relationships
Map weak entities
Map binary relationships
Map higher degree relationships
7. Normalize the Logical Model. You may also denormalize the logical model in order to gain some desired characteristics. (like improved performance)
8.
Refine Attribute Atomicity -
It is generally good practice to pay attention to the atomicity requirement. An atomic attribute is one that cannot
be further subdivided. Such an attribute is said to display atomicity. By improving the degree of atomicity, you also gain querying flexibility.
Refine Primary Keys as Required for Data Granularity - Granularity refers to the level of detail represented by the values stored in a table’s row. Data stored at their lowest
level of granularity are said to be atomic data, as explained earlier. For example imagine ASSIGN_HOURS attribute to represent the hours worked by a given employee on a given project. However, are
those values recorded at their lowest level of granularity? In other words, does ASSIGN_HOURS represent the hourly
total, daily total, weekly total, monthly total, or yearly total? Clearly, ASSIGN_HOURS requires more careful definition. In this case, the relevant question would be as follows: For what time frame—hour, day, week, month, and
so on—do you want to record the ASSIGN_HOURS data?
For example, assume that the combination of EMP_NUM and PROJ_NUM is an acceptable (composite) primary key
in the ASSIGNMENT table. That primary key is useful in representing only the total number of hours an employee
worked on a project since its start. Using a surrogate primary key such as ASSIGN_NUM provides lower granularity
and yields greater flexibility. For example, assume that the EMP_NUM and PROJ_NUM combination is used as the
primary key, and then an employee makes two “hours worked” entries in the ASSIGNMENT table. That action violates
the entity integrity requirement. Even if you add the ASSIGN_DATE as part of a composite PK, an entity integrity
violation is still generated if any employee makes two or more entries for the same project on the same day. (The
employee might have worked on the project a few hours in the morning and then worked on it again later in the day.)
The same data entry yields no problems when ASSIGN_NUM is used as the primary key.
Try to answer the questions: "Who will be allowed to use the tables and what portion(s) of the table(s) will be available to which users?" ETC.
Please feel free to leave suggestions or links to better descriptions in the comments below i will add it to my answer
One aspect of your question touched on representing subclass-superclass relationships in SQL tables. Martin Fowler discusses three ways to design this, of which my favorite is Class Table Inheritance. The tricky part is arranging for the Id field to propagate from superclasses to subclasses. Once you get that done, the joins you will typically want to do are slick, easy, and fast.
There are six main steps in designing any database :
1. Requirements Analysis
2. Conceptual Design
3. Logical Design
4. Schema Refinement
5. Physical Design
6. Application & Security Design.
I'm setting up a database that will have 'business_owners' and 'customers'. I could set this up in a couple days but wanted to see what your opinion is on best practice.
I could have two tables, 'business_owners' and 'customers', each with name, email etc. or...
I could do one table 'Users' and have a user_type as 'business_owner' or 'customer' and just use that type to determine what to show.
I'm thinking the second option is best, any feedback?
Rule of thumb:
If you have more than one table with identical (or near identical) columns, they should be condensed into a single table. Use a type code/etc to distinguish between as necessary, and work out the business rules for columns that depend on the type code.
Answer:
The second option is the best approach. It's the most scalable, and will be the easiest to work with if you ever need to use resultsets that include both business owners & customers.
It depends on the difference between the two types, if they share exactly the same attributes aside from their role as either a 'user' or 'business owner' I would suggest going for the second option to avoid overkill in terms of having identical columns in 2 separate tables.
How would you model this in an object model? Would you set up a single superclass, call it "stakeholders", that captures the properties of both business-owners and customers? Would you then set up specialized subclasses, "business-owner" and "customer" that extend the definition of stakeholders? If so, read on.
Your case looks like an instance of the Gen-Spec design pattern. Gen-spec is familiar to object oriented programmers through the superclass-subclass hierarchy. Unfortunately, introductions to relational database design tend to skip over how to design tables for the Gen-Spec situation. Fortunately, it’s well understood. A web search on “Relational database generalization specialization” will yield several articles on the subject. Some of your hits will be previous questions here on SO. Here is one article that discusses Gen-Spec in terms of Object Relational Mapping.
The trick is in the way the PK for the subclass (specialized) tables gets assigned. It’s not generated by some sort of autonumber feature. Instead, it’s a copy of the PK in the superclass (generalized) table, and is therefore an FK reference to it.
Thus, if the case were vehicles, trucks and sedans, every truck or sedan would have an entry in the vehicles table, trucks would also have an entry in the trucks table, with a PK that’s a copy of the corresponding PK in the vehicles table. Similarly for sedans and the sedan table. It’s easy to figure out whether a vehicle is a truck or a sedan by just doing joins, and you usually want to join the data in that kind of query anyway.
We put common prefixes on related tables to assure they display next to each other in our DB management software (Toad, Enterprise Manager, etc).
So for example, all user tables start with the word User:
User
UserEvent
UserPurchase
Ideally, in honor of the three great virtues of a programmer these tables should be named User, Event, Purchase respectively to save some typing, agreed?
Is this naming convention the best (only?) practice for grouping related tables together naturally?
I tend to go against the grain in naming conventions on two counts here...
I don't like using prefixes so that things group together in a given UI. To me the tables should be named such that in code they are easily readable and make sense. There have been numerous studies (mostly ignored by programmers) that show that things like using underscores, logical names, eliminating abbreviations, and eliminating things like prefixes have a very big impact on both comprehension and the speed of working with code. Also, if you use prefixes to break down tables what do you do when a table is used by multiple areas - or even worse it starts out in only one area but later starts to be used in another area. Do you now have to rename the table?
I almost completely ignore name lengths. I'm much more concerned about readability and understandability than I am about taking 1/10th of a second longer to type a column or table name. When you also keep in mind all of the time wasted trying to remember if you abbreviated "number" as "no", "num" or "nbr" and keep in mind the use of things like Intellisense, using longer, more meaningful names is a no brainer to me.
With those things in mind, if your UserEvents table really has to do with events related to a user then that name makes perfect sense. Using just Events would end up giving you a poorly named table because the name isn't clear enough in my opinion.
Hope this helps!
I wouldn't use a naming convention for purposes of alphabetizing table names. It's nice when it works out that way, but this shouldn't be by design.
Read Joe Celko's book "SQL Programming Style." His first chapter in that book is about naming conventions, guided by the ISO 11179 standard for metadata naming. One of his recommendations is to avoid unnecessary prefixes in your naming convention.
I would use this notation i.e "UserEvent" in case this table is a representation of many-to-many relation between "User" and "Event" tables.
I think it depends on how if/how you plan to expand upon your data model. For instance, what if you decided that you not only want to have User Events, but also, Account Events, or Login Events, and User, Accounts, and Logins are all different types of entities, but they share some Events. In that case, you would might want a normalized database model:
Users (Id int, Name varchar)
Accounts (Id int, Name varchar)
Logins (Id int, Name varchar)
Events (Id int, Name varchar)
UserEvents (UserId int, EventId int)
AccountEvents (AccountId int, EventId int)
LoginEvents (LoginId int, EventId int)
I guess that the naming convention in SQL is or at least should follow the same guidelines as used in other programming languages. I have always preferred variable names / class name that clearly identified the purpose and that usually means more typing. I think the importent thing to remember is that code is only written once but read a lot of times, so clarity is vital.
The last 4 or 5 years I have noticed that the variable names have grown from "eDS" to "employeeDataSet" and I think that IntelliSense is the main reason for that.
I think we will see the same happen in SQL since Red Gate SQL Prompt and now MS SQL2008 have introduced Intellisense into the mainstrem database world.
I also would avoid using prefixes in order to get meaning out of an alphabetically ordered list. It's generally bad data management to use names that way. If tables are closely related, then the software that manages the data model should be able to model relationships between tables, regardless of how the tables are named.
A name like UserEvents should be used when the content of each row describes a relationship between a User and an Event. If I saw such a table in a database that was new to me, I'd expect to see a primary key in this table made up of two foreign keys, one to the Users table and one to the Events table.
If I saw something different, I would have to slow down until I understood the designer's convention.
This last point raises some questions: home many new people will be coming up to speed on the database? What documentation will those people have available? How important are those new people to the success of the project that ijncludes the database, or the success of the database designer?
Personally I rename my tables like this:
Main tables : tbl_user
Reference tables : ref_profil
Related Tables : lnk_user_profil
I personally favor naming conditions similar to what you have listed there, as it is a very logical pattern, they are organized in a way that you can easily find them, and overall the extra bits of typing typically doesn't cause many issues or reductions in time.