I'm working on basic restaurant reservation system and was thinking about using Amazon DynamoDB for this project. That being said, I'm not even sure if DynamoDB is suitable for something like this or if I should stick to MySQL RDS since some of the queries may be quite complex.
Functionality I need:
User will submit a "Find Table" form with date, time and party size.
Check RESTAURANT table if date and party size is even allowed.
Check BLOCKED table for blocked dates (holidays and other closures)
Check HOURS table making sure the restaurant is even open.
Check TABLEINFO table for a table based on party size AND compare with RESERVATION table making sure the table is not already reserved for another guest during the same time
Any suggestions or tips on the DynamoDB database design especially hash & range use for something like this?
Or do you think MySQL database is better suited for this kind of app?
This is a quick DB design to give you better idea what I'm trying to do.
I've done a lot with relational databases, and a bit with NoSQL databases (just so you know where I'm coming from). IMHO, NoSQL databases are best suited to scenarios where either one or more are true:
The data is essentially flat (not a lot of relations, almost like an
old flat-file)
There's a definite "parent" type record with "child"
records which are small enough/accessed frequently enough with the
parent to justify embedding them right in the record.
You need the
freedom to add/populate fields within reason. I like to think of it
like inheritance, where every item in the table shares some common
traits (ID, Name), but different records might have different
traits. For example, an online product catalog might have books,
bikes, and MP3 songs in it. A record for a "book" item would have
stuff like ISBN, number of pages, author, etc. A "bike" might have
wheel size and color, and an "MP3" would have length, artist, genre,
etc. You'd never get all of those things in an "item" table in an
RDS without some serious overloading or leaving fields empty. A
NoSQL database would allow you to store all of that info in the
table, and only for the items that need it.
You can definitely build the schema you include with your question using the indexing abilities of Dynamo, but you'd be trying to make a NoSQL database act like a RDS.
That said: I myself would try it with Dynamo first as a learning experience. :)
Related
I am working on a project which involves building a social network-style application allowing users to share inventory/product information within their network (for sourcing).
I am a decent programmer, but I am admittedly not an expert with databases; even more so when it comes to database design. Currently, user/company information is stored via a relational database scheme in MySQL which is working perfectly.
My problem is that while my relational scheme works brilliantly for user/company information, it is confusing me on how to implement inventory information. The issue is that each "inventory list" will definitely contain differing attributes specific to the product type, but identical to the attributes of each other product in the list. My first thought was to create a table for each "inventory list". However, I feel like this would be very messy and would complicate future attempts at KDD. I also (briefly) considered using a 'master inventory' and storing the information (e.g. the variable categories and data as a JSON string. But I figured JSON strings MySQL would just become a larger pain in the ass.
My question is essentially how would someone else solve this problem? Or, more generally, sticking with principles of relational database management, what is the "correct" way to associate unique, large data sets of similar type with a parent user? The thing is, I know I could easily jerry-build something that would work, but I am genuinely interested in what the consensus is on how to solve this problem.
Thanks!
I would check out this post: Entity Attribute Value Database vs. strict Relational Model Ecommerce
The way I've always seen this done is to make a base table for inventory that stores universally common fields. A product id, a product name, etc.
Then you have another table that has dynamic attributes. A very popular example of this is Wordpress. If you look at their data model, they use this idea heavily.
One of the good things about this approach is that it's flexible. One of the major negatives is that it's slow and can produce complex code.
I'll throw out an alternative of using a document database. In that case, each document can have a different schema/structure and you can still run queries against them.
I have 40+ columns in my table and i have to add few more fields like, current city, hometown, school, work, uni, collage..
These user data wil be pulled for many matching users who are mutual friends (joining friend table with other user friend to see mutual friends) and who are not blocked and also who is not already friend with the user.
The above request is little complex, so i thought it would be good idea to put extra data in same user table to fast access, rather then adding more joins to the table, it will slow the query more down. but i wanted to get your suggestion on this
my friend told me to add the extra fields, which wont be searched on one field as serialized data.
ERD Diagram:
My current table: http://i.stack.imgur.com/KMwxb.png
If i join into more tables: http://i.stack.imgur.com/xhAxE.png
Some Suggestions
nothing wrong with this table and columns
follow this approach MySQL: Optimize table with lots of columns - which serialize extra fields into one field, which are not searchable's
create another table and put most of the data there. (this gets harder on joins, if i already have 3 or more tables to join to pull the records for users (ex. friends, user, check mutual friends)
As usual - it depends.
Firstly, there is a maximum number of columns MySQL can support, and you don't really want to get there.
Secondly, there is a performance impact when inserting or updating if you have lots of columns with an index (though I'm not sure if this matters on modern hardware).
Thirdly, large tables are often a dumping ground for all data that seems related to the core entity; this rapidly makes the design unclear. For instance, the design you present shows 3 different "status" type fields (status, is_admin, and fb_account_verified) - I suspect there's some business logic that should link those together (an admin must be a verified user, for instance), but your design doesn't support that.
This may or may not be a problem - it's more a conceptual, architecture/design question than a performance/will it work thing. However, in such cases, you may consider creating tables to reflect the related information about the account, even if it doesn't have a x-to-many relationship. So, you might create "user_profile", "user_credentials", "user_fb", "user_activity", all linked by user_id.
This makes it neater, and if you have to add more facebook-related fields, they won't dangle at the end of the table. It won't make your database faster or more scalable, though. The cost of the joins is likely to be negligible.
Whatever you do, option 2 - serializing "rarely used fields" into a single text field - is a terrible idea. You can't validate the data (so dates could be invalid, numbers might be text, not-nulls might be missing), and any use in a "where" clause becomes very slow.
A popular alternative is "Entity/Attribute/Value" or "Key/Value" stores. This solution has some benefits - you can store your data in a relational database even if your schema changes or is unknown at design time. However, they also have drawbacks: it's hard to validate the data at the database level (data type and nullability), it's hard to make meaningful links to other tables using foreign key relationships, and querying the data can become very complicated - imagine finding all records where the status is 1 and the facebook_id is null and the registration date is greater than yesterday.
Given that you appear to know the schema of your data, I'd say "key/value" is not a good choice.
I would advice to run some tests. Try it both ways and benchmark it. Nobody will be able to give you a definitive answer because you have not shared your hardware configuration, sample data, sample queries, how you plan on using the data etc. Here is some information that you may want to consider.
Use The Database as it was intended
A relational database is designed specifically to handle data. Use it as such. When written correctly, joining data in a well written schema will perform well. You can use EXPLAIN to optimize queries. You can log SLOW queries and improve their performance. Databases have been around for years, if putting everything into a single table improved performance, don't you think that would be all the buzz on the internet and everyone would be doing it?
Engine Types
How will inserts be affected as the row count grows? Are you using MyISAM or InnoDB? You will most likely want to use InnoDB so you get row level locking and not table. Make sure you are using the correct Engine type for your tables. Get the information you need to understand the pros and cons of both. The wrong engine type can kill performance.
Enhancing Performance using Partitions
Find ways to enhance performance. For example, as your datasets grow you could partition the data. Data partitioning will improve the performance of a large dataset by keeping slices of the data in separate partions allowing you to run queries on parts of large datasets instead of all of the information.
Use correct column types
Consider using UUID Primary Keys for portability and future growth. If you use proper column types, it will improve performance of your data.
Do not serialize data
Using serialized data is the worse way to go. When you use serialized fields, you are basically using the database as a file management system. It will save and retrieve the "file", but then your code will be responsible for unserializing, searching, sorting, etc. I just spent a year trying to unravel a mess like that. It's not what a database was intended to be used for. Anyone advising you to do that is not only giving you bad advice, they do not know what they are doing. There are very few circumstances where you would use serialized data in a database.
Conclusion
In the end, you have to make the final decision. Just make sure you are well informed and educated on the pros and cons of how you store data. The last piece of advice I would give is to find out what heavy users of mysql are doing. Do you think they store data in a single table? Or do they build a relational model and use it the way it was designed to be used?
When you say "I am going to put everything into a single table", you are saying that you know more about performance and can make better choices for optimization in your code than the team of developers that constantly work on MySQL to make it what it is today. Consider weighing your knowledge against the cumulative knowledge of the MySQL team and the DBAs, companies, and members of the database community who use it every day.
At a certain point you should look at the "short row model", also know as entity-key-value stores,as well as the traditional "long row model".
If you look at the schema used by WordPress you will see that there is a table wp_posts with 23 columns and a related table wp_post_meta with 4 columns (meta_id, post_id, meta_key, meta_value). The meta table is a "short row model" table that allows WordPress to have an infinite collection of attributes for a post.
Neither the "long row model" or the "short row model" is the best model, often the best choice is a combination of the two. As #nevillek pointed out searching and validating "short row" is not easy, fetching data can involve pivoting which is annoyingly difficult in MySql and Oracle.
The "long row model" is easier to validate, relate and fetch, but it can be very inflexible and inefficient when the data is sparse. Some rows may have only a few of the values non-null. Also you can't add new columns without modifying the schema, which could force a system outage, depending on your architecture.
I recently worked on a financial services system that had over 700 possible facts for each instrument, most had less than 20 facts. This could have been built by setting up dozens of tables, each for a particular asset class, or as a table with 700 columns, but we chose to use a combination of a table with about 20 columns containing the most popular facts and a 4 column table which contained the other facts. This design was efficient but was difficult ot access, so we built a few table functions in PL/SQL to assist with this.
I have a general comment for you,
Think about it: If you put anything more than 10-12 columns in a table even if it makes sense to put them in a table, I guess you are going to pay the price in the short term, long term and medium term.
Your 3 tables approach seems to be better than the 1 table approach, but consider making those into 5-6 tables rather than 3 tables because you still can.
Move currently, currently_position, currently_link from user-table and work from user-profile into a new table with your primary key called USERWORKPROFILE.
Move locale Information from user-profile to a newer USERPROFILELOCALE information because it is generic in nature.
And yes, all your generic attributes in all the tables should be int and not varchar.
For instance, City needs to move out to a new table called LIST_OF_CITIES with cityid.
And your attribute city should change from varchar to int and point to cityid in LIST_OF_CITIES.
Do not worry about performance issues; the more tables you have, better the performance, because you are actually handing out the performance to the database provider instead of taking it all in your own hands.
I'm wondering what is the best way to do this:
Person submits review (name, email, webhost, domain hosted, ranking data [five numerical factors], etc.)
PHP inserts that review into "SubmittedReviews" table
I then oversee the submitted reviews in the back end, then submit the ones I want
4 . PHP inserts that info into another table called "LiveReviews" (which has the same table structure as "SubmittedReviews")
(OR, might be better to have PHP create a table for each host, with that hosts' reviews inside it, since there will be many hosts and I'm going to make a separate table to pre-calculate ranking data for my "top hosts" table on the site)
So as I have PHP submit the reviews live (creating a new table [for each host] or just into the "LiveReviews" table) I will also submit the ranking data into another table, adding up all the ranking data for each host, so it is readily available and so I know which hosts are ranking highest.
Or should I just use PHP to calculate the LiveReviews ranking data on the spot when I want to know which host is ranking best? Seeing as the front page will be loading this data often, doesn't seem it'd be good to calculate it every time. I'd rather have it calculated beforehand.
So if I have this "ranking data" table, then it seems I should have tables for each host with all their reviews. Otherwise, it seems just having one large table (LiveReviews) is better.
Hope this makes sense!
What is the best way? I'm pretty new to MySQL.
I must admit that I don't understant exactly what you're trying to achive. What exactly are your users supposed to review?
However I do have two pieces of advice:
Never organize stuff by placing it in different tables. It's heresy in the world of relational databases! And your queries will en up uneccesary complicated.
And consider doing calculation in the DB, not in PHP.
Learning database modeling is a good idea. Entity-Relationship diagrams are not hard but very useful.
Good luck.
Background
I am developing a social web app for poets and writers, allowing them to share their poetry, gather feedback, and communicate with other poets. I have very little formal training in database design, but I have been reading books, SO, and online DB design resources in an attempt to ensure performance and scalability without over-engineering.
The database is MySQL, and the application is written in PHP. I'm not sure yet whether we will be using an ORM library or writing SQL queries from scratch in the app. Other than the web application, Solr search server and maybe some messaging client will interact with the database.
Current Needs
The schema I have thrown together below represents the primary components of the first version of the website. Initially, users can register for the site and do any of the following:
Create and modify profile details and account settings
Post, tag and categorize their writing
Read, comment on and "favorite" other users' posts
"Follow" other users to get notifications of their activity
Search and browse content and get suggested posts/users (though we will be using the Solr search server to index DB data and run these type of queries)
Schema
Here is what I came up with on MySQL Workbench for the initial site. I'm still a little fuzzy on some relational databasey things, so go easy.
Questions
In general, is there anything I'm doing wrong or can improve upon?
Is there any reason why I shouldn't combine the ExternalAccounts table into the UserProfiles table?
Is there any reason why I shouldn't combine the PostStats table into the Posts table?
Should I expand the design to include the features we are doing in the second version just to ensure that the initial schema can support it?
Is there anything I can do to optimize the DB design for Solr indexing/performance/whatever?
Should I be using more natural primary keys, like Username instead of UserID, or zip/area code instead of a surrogate LocationID in the Locations table?
Thanks for the help!
In general, is there anything I'm doing wrong or can improve upon?
Overall, I don't see any big flaws in your current setup or schema.
What I'm wonderng is your split into 3 User* tables. I get what you want your intendtion was (having different user-related things seperate) but I don't know if I would go with the exact same thing. If you plan on displaying only data from the User table on the site, this is fine, since the other info is not needed multiple times on the same page but if users need to use their real name and display their real name (like John Doe instead of doe55) than this will slow down things when the data gets bigger since you may require joins. Having the Preferences seperate seems like a personal choice. I have no argument in favor of nor against it.
Your many-to-many tables would not need an addtional PK (e.g PostFavoriteID). A combined primary of both PostID and UserID would be enough since PostFavoriteID is never used anywhere else. This goes for all join tables
Is there any reason why I shouldn't combine the ExternalAccounts
table into the UserProfiles table?
As withe the prev. answer, I don't see a advatanage or disadvantage. I may put both in the same table since the NULL (or maybe better -1) values would not bother me.
Is there any reason why I shouldn't combine the PostStats table
into the Posts table?
I would put them into the same table using a trigger to handle the increment of the ViewCount table
Should I expand the design to include
the features we are doing in the
second version just to ensure that the
initial schema can support it?
You are using a normalsied schema so any additions can be done at any time.
Is there anything I can do to optimize the DB design for Solr
indexing/performance/whatever?
Can't tell you, haven't done it yet but I know that Solr is very powerfull and flexible so I think you should be doing fine.
Should I be using more natural primary keys, like Username instead of
UserID, or zip/area code instead of a
surrogate LocationID in the Locations
table?
There are many threads here on SO discussing this. Personally, I like a surrogate key better (or another unique number key if available) since it makes queries more easier and faster since an int is looked up easier. If you allow a change of username/email/whatever-your-PK-is than there are massive updates required. With the surrogate key, you don't need to bother.
What I would also do is to add things like created_at, last_accessed at (best done via triggers or procedures IMO) to have some stats already available. This can realy give you valuable stats
Further strategies to increate the performance would be things like memcache, counter cache, partitioned tables,... Such things can be discussed when you are really overrun by users because there may be things/technologies/techniques/... that are very specific to your problem.
I'm not clear what's going on with your User* tables - they're set up as if they're 1:1 but the diagram reflects 1-to-many (the crow's foot symbol).
The ExternalAccounts and UserSettings could be normalised further (in which case they would then be 1-to-many!), which will give you a more maintainable design - you wouldn't need to add further columns to your schema for additional External Account or Notification Types (although this may be less scalable in terms of performance).
For example:
ExternalAccounts
UserId int,
AccountType varchar(45),
AccountIdentifier varchar(45)
will allow you to store LinkedIn, Google, etc. accounts in the same structure.
Similarly, further Notification Types can be readily added using a structure like:
UserSettings
UserId int,
NotificationType varchar(45),
NotificationFlag ENUM('on','off')
hth
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Background
I'm a first year CS student and I work part time for my dad's small business. I don't have any experience in real world application development. I have written scripts in Python, some coursework in C, but nothing like this.
My dad has a small training business and currently all classes are scheduled, recorded and followed up via an external web application. There is an export/"reports" feature but it is very generic and we need specific reports. We don't have access to the actual database to run the queries. I've been asked to set up a custom reporting system.
My idea is to create the generic CSV exports and import (probably with Python) them into a MySQL database hosted in the office every night, from where I can run the specific queries that are needed. I don't have experience in databases but understand the very basics. I've read a little about database creation and normal forms.
We may start having international clients soon, so I want the database to not explode if/when that happens. We also currently have a couple big corporations as clients, with different divisions (e.g. ACME parent company, ACME healthcare division, ACME bodycare division)
The schema I have come up with is the following:
From the client perspective:
Clients is the main table
Clients are linked to the department they work for
Departments can be scattered around a country: HR in London, Marketing in Swansea, etc.
Departments are linked to the division of a company
Divisions are linked to the parent company
From the classes perspective:
Sessions is the main table
A teacher is linked to each session
A statusid is given to each session. E.g. 0 - Completed, 1 - Cancelled
Sessions are grouped into "packs" of an arbitrary size
Each packs is assigned to a client
I "designed" (more like scribbled) the schema on a piece of paper, trying to keep it normalised to the 3rd form. I then plugged it into MySQL Workbench and it made it all pretty for me: (Click here for full-sized graphic)
(source: maian.org)
Example queries I'll be running
Which clients with credit still left are inactive (those without a class scheduled in the future)
What is the attendance rate per client/department/division (measured by the status id in each session)
How many classes has a teacher had in a month
Flag clients who have low attendance rate
Custom reports for HR departments with attendance rates of people in their division
Question(s)
Is this overengineered or am I headed the right way?
Will the need to join multiple tables for most queries result in a big performance hit?
I have added a 'lastsession' column to clients, as it is probably going to be a common query. Is this a good idea or should I keep the database strictly normalised?
Thanks for your time
Some more answers to your questions:
1) You're pretty much on target for someone who is approaching a problem like this for the first time. I think the pointers from others on this question thus far pretty much cover it. Good job!
2 & 3) The performance hit you will take will largely be dependent on having and optimizing the right indexes for your particular queries / procedures and more importantly the volume of records. Unless you are talking about well over a million records in your main tables you seem to be on track to having a sufficiently mainstream design that performance will not be an issue on reasonable hardware.
That said, and this relates to your question 3, with the start you have you probably shouldn't really be overly worried about performance or hyper-sensitivity to normalization orthodoxy here. This is a reporting server you are building, not a transaction based application backend, which would have a much different profile with respect to the importance of performance or normalization. A database backing a live signup and scheduling application has to be mindful of queries that take seconds to return data. Not only does a report server function have more tolerance for complex and lengthy queries, but the strategies to improve performance are much different.
For example, in a transaction based application environment your performance improvement options might include refactoring your stored procedures and table structures to the nth degree, or developing a caching strategy for small amounts of commonly requested data. In a reporting environment you can certainly do this but you can have an even greater impact on performance by introducing a snapshot mechanism where a scheduled process runs and stores pre-configured reports and your users access the snapshot data with no stress on your db tier on a per request basis.
All of this is a long-winded rant to illustrate that what design principles and tricks you employ may differ given the role of the db you're creating. I hope that's helpful.
You've got the right idea. You can however clean it up, and remove some of the mapping (has*) tables.
What you can do is in the Departments table, add CityId and DivisionId.
Besides that, I think everything is fine...
The only changes I would make are:
1- Change your VARCHAR to NVARCHAR, if you might be going international, you may want unicode.
2- Change your int id's to GUIDs (uniqueidentifier) if possible (this might just be my personal preference). Assuming you eventually get to the point where you have multiple environments (dev/test/staging/prod), you may want to migrate data from one to the other. Have GUID Ids makes this significantly easier.
3- Three layers for your Company -> Division -> Department structure may not be enough. Now, this might be over-engineering, but you could generalize that hierarchy such that you can support n-levels of depth. This will make some of your queries more complex, so that may not be worth the trade-off. Further, it could be that any client that has more layers may be easily "stuffable" into this model.
4- You also have a Status in the Client Table that is a VARCHAR and has no link to the Statuses table. I'd expect a little more clarity there as to what the Client Status represents.
No. It looks like you're designing at a good level of detail.
I think that Countries and Companies are really the same entity in your design, as are Cities and Divisions. I'd get rid of the Countries and Cities tables (and Cities_Has_Departments) and, if necessary, add a boolean flag IsPublicSector to the Companies table (or a CompanyType column if there are more choices than simply Private Sector / Public Sector).
Also, I think there's an error in your usage of the Departments table. It looks like the Departments table serves as a reference to the various kinds of departments that each customer division can have. If so, it should be called DepartmentTypes. But your clients (who are, I assume, attendees) do not belong to a department TYPE, they belong to an actual department instance in a company. As it stands now, you will know that a given client belongs to an HR department somewhere, but not which one!
In other words, Clients should be linked to the table that you call Divisions_Has_Departments (but that I would call simply Departments). If this is so, then you must collapse Cities into Divisions as discussed above if you want to use standard referential integrity in the database.
By the way, it's worth noting that if you're generating CSVs already and want to load them into a mySQL database, LOAD DATA LOCAL INFILE is your best friend: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/load-data.html . Mysqlimport is also worth looking into, and is a command-line tool that's basically a nice wrapper around load data infile.
Most things have already been said, but I feel that I can add one thing: it is quite common for younger developers to worry about performance a little bit too much up-front, and your question about joining tables seems to go into that direction. This is a software development anti-pattern called 'Premature Optimization'. Try to banish that reflex from your mind :)
One more thing: Do you believe you really need the 'cities' and 'countries' tables? Wouldn't having a 'city' and 'country' column in the departments table suffice for your use cases? E.g. does your application need to list departments by city and cities by country?
Following comments based on role as a Business Intelligence/Reporting specialist and strategy/planning manager:
I agree with Larry's direction above. IMHO, It's not so much over engineered, some things just look a little out of place. To keep it simple, I would tag client directly to a Company ID, Department Description, Division Description, Department Type ID, Division Type ID. Use Department Type ID and Division Type ID as references to lookup tables and internal reporting/analysis fields for long term consistency.
Packs table contains "Credit" column, shouldn't that actually be tied to the Client base table so if they many packs you can see how much credit owed is left for future classes? The application can take care of the calc and store it centrally in the Client table.
Company info could use many more fields, including the obvious address/phone/etc. information. I'd also be prepared to add in D&B "DUNs" columns (Site/Branch/Ultimate) long term, Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has a huge catalog of companies and you'll find later down the road their information is very helpful for reporting/analysis. This will take care of the multiple division issue you mention, and allow you to roll up their hierarchy for sub/division/branches/etc. of large corps.
You don't mention how many records you'll be working with which could imply setting yourself up for a large development initiative which could have been done quicker and far fewer headaches with prepackaged "reporting" software. If your not dealing with a large database (< 65000) rows, make sure MS-Access, OpenOffice (Base) or related report/app dev solutions couldn't do the trick. I use Oracle's free APEX software quite a bit myself, it comes with their free database Oracle XE just download it from their site.
FYI - Reporting insight: for large databases, you typically have two database instances a) transaction database for recording each detailed record. b) reporting database (data mart/data warehouse) housed on a separate machine. For more information search google both Star Schema and Snowflake Schema.
Regards.
I want to address only the concern that joining to mutiple tables will casue a performance hit. Do not be afraid to normalize because you will have to do joins. Joins are normal and expected in relational datbases and they are designed to handle them well. You will need to set PK/FK relationships (for data integrity, this is important to consider in designing) but in many databases FKs are not automatically indexed. Since they wil be used in the joins, you will definitelty want to start by indexing the FKS. PKs generally get an index on creation as they have to be unique. It is true that datawarehouse design reduces the number of joins, but usually one doesn't get to the point of data warehousing until one has millions of records needed to be accessed in one report. Even then almost all data warehouses start with a transactional database to collect the data in real time and then data is moved to the warehouse on a schedule (nightly or monthly or whatever the business need is). So this is a good start even if you need to design a data warehouse later to improve report performance.
I must say your design is impressive for a first year CS student.
It isn't over-engineered, this is how I would approach the problem. Joining is fine, there won't be much of a performance hit (it's completely necessary unless you de-normalise the database out which isn't recommended!). For statuses, see if you can use an enum datatype instead to optimise that table out.
I've worked in the training / school domain and I thought I'd point out that there's generally a M:1 relationship between what you call "sessions" (instances of a given course) and the course itself. In other words, your catalog offers the course ("Spanish 101" or whatever), but you might have two different instances of it during a single semester (Tu-Th taught by Smith, Wed-Fri taught by Jones).
Other than that, it looks like a good start. I bet you'll find that the client domain (graphs leading to "clients") is more complex than you've modeled, but don't go overboard with that until you've got some real data to guide you.
A few things came to mind:
The tables seemed geared to reporting, but not really running the business. I would think when a client signs up, there's essentially an order being placed for the client attending a list of sessions, and that order might be for multiple employees in one company. It would seem an "order" table would really be at the center of your system and driving your data capture and eventual reporting. (Compare the paper documents you've been using to run the business with your database design to see if there's a logical match.)
Companies often don't have divisions. Employees sometimes change divisions/departments, maybe even mid-session. Companies sometimes add/delete/rename divisions/departments. Make sure the possible realtime changing contents of your tables doesn't make subsequent reporting/grouping difficult. With so much contact data split over so many tables, you might have to enforce very strict data entry validation to keep your reports meaningful and inclusive. Eg, when a new client is added, making sure his company/division/department/city match the same values as his coworkers.
The "packs" concept isn't clear at all.
Since you indicate it's a small business, it would be surprising if performance would be an issue, considering the speed and capacity of current machines.