In a MySQL Database, I have two tables: Users and Items
The idea is that Users can create as many Items as they want, each with unique IDs, and they will be connected so that I can display all of the Items from a particular user.
Which is the better method in terms of performance and clarity? Is there even a real difference?
Each User will contain a column with a list of Item IDs, and the query will retrieve all matching Item rows.
Each Item will contain a column with the User's ID that created it, and the query will call for all Items with a specific User ID.
Let me just clarify why approach 2 is superior...
The approach 1 means you'd be packing several distinct pieces of information within the same database field. That violates the principle of atomicity and therefore the 1NF. As a consequence:
Indexing won't work (bad for performance).
FOREIGN KEYs and type safety won't work (bad for data integrity).
Indeed, the approach 2 is the standard way for representing such "one to many" relationship.
2nd approach is better, because it defines one-to-many relationship on USER to ITEM table.
You can create foreign key on ITEM table on USERID columns which refers to USERID column in USER table.
You can easily join both tables and index also be used for that query.
As long as an item doesn't have multiple owners it's a one to many relationship. This typically gets reduced to the second approach you mention, eg. have a user or created_by column in the Items table.
If a User can have one or more Items but each Item is owned by only a single User, then you have a classic One-To-Many relationship.
The first option, cramming a list of related IDs into a single field, is exactly the wrong way to do it.
Assign a unique identifier field to each table (called the primary key). And add an extra field to the Item table, a foreign key, the id of the User that owns that item.
Like this ERD (entity-relationship diagram)…
You have some learning to do about relational database design and normalization.
Related
Suppose I have a table called "student" with a single column "name". And I want to store a second attribute called "group". "group" will be a value calculated from the name, and different names can be in the same group. So each name has a group and a group can have many names. This could be easily modeled in a normalised schema by creating a second table called "group" and adding a fk column to "student" that points to "group". However, suppose now that I can only calculate a student's group some time after they have registered. So I need to be able to enter a student without knowing their group. With this schema, I'll either have to use null fk's, or not add the student.
Apologies if I'm missing the obvious, I'm somewhat new to normalisation. What I have considered is using an associative table with a fk for group and a fk for student. This would allow me to enter students without knowing their groups and then linking them to their groups via the associative table at a later stage. But from what I've read on associative tables, you're meant to use them for deconstructing many-to-many relationships. And this is a one-to-many relationship. So I'm confused. Is there a standard way of normalising such a many-to-one relationship where the value can only be calculated later?
A pretty common way to solve this is just to have a "no group" record in the groups table. All students start off mapped to that record and then you update the foreign key when they are assigned to a group.
TABLE FIELDS
users user_id
items item_id
item_instance item_inst_id
item_inst_qty
user_id
item_id
The first table has all the users, and the second table has all the items.
The third table records the quantity of a specific item which a user has. It is not recording data about the item itself, but rather the data about the relationship between the item and user.
My question is what is the third type of table generally referred to as? The most accurate abstraction I could think of is "instance," as taken from OOP, because each data record represents an occurrance of a particular class of data, which in this case is the "item" class. Also, "case" was another possiblity.
In database programing, is there a generally accepted term for a table which has records that tie two tables together in this manner? Or is the naming convention usually up to the programmer? If the latter, what is your take?
I'm running on a version of MySQL that does not support foreign key relationships.
Suppose I have two tables, one holds a number of users while the other one holds a number of topics. I want each of the topics to have a field which holds a set of user id's who participated in that topic. I read the type SET's documentation and it says it must be values from predefined values. So how should I go about doing this?
You don't want an extra field, this is a very inefficient way of storing such things. You want a new table.
In your third table (called, say, topicUsers). you would have just two fields: userId and topicId. Then you can look at this table and join data from the others as needed.
This is called normalisation
I would guess this is a semi-common question but I can't find it in the list of past questions. I have a set of tables for products which need to share a primary key index. Assume something like the following:
product1_table:
id,
name,
category,
...other fields
product2_table:
id,
name,
category,
...other fields
product_to_category_table:
product_id,
category_id
Clearly it would be useful to have a shared index between the two product tables. Note, the idea of keeping them separate is because they have largely different sets of fields beyond the basics, however they share a common categorization.
UPDATE:
A lot of people have suggested table inheritance (or gen-spec). This is an option I'm aware of but given in other database systems I could share a sequence between tables I was hoping MySQL had a similar solution. I shall assume it doesn't based on the responses. I guess I'll have to go with table inheritance... Thank you all.
It's not really common, no. There is no native way to share a primary key. What I might do in your situation is this:
product_table
id
name
category
general_fields...
product_type1_table:
id
product_id
product_type1_fields...
product_type2_table:
id
product_id
product_type2_fields...
product_to_category_table:
product_id
category_id
That is, there is one master product table that has entries for all products and has the fields that generalize between the types, and type-specified tables with foreign keys into the master product table, which have the type-specific data.
A better design is to put the common columns in one products table, and the special columns in two separate tables. Use the product_id as the primary key in all three tables, but in the two special tables it is, in addition, a foreign key back to the main products table.
This simplifies the basic product search for ids and names by category.
Note, also that your design allows each product to be in one category at most.
It seems you are looking for table inheritance.
You could use a common table product with attributes common to both product1 and product2, plus a type attribute which could be either "product2" or "product1"
Then tables product1 and product2 would have all their specific attributes and a reference to the parent table product.
product:
id,
name,
category,
type
product1_table:
id,
#product_id,
product1_specific_fields
product2_table:
id,
#product_id,
product2_specific_fields
First let me state that I agree with everything that Chaos, Larry and Phil have said.
But if you insist on another way...
There are two reasons for your shared PK. One uniqueness across the two tables and two to complete referential integrity.
I'm not sure exactly what "sequence" features the Auto_increment columns support. It seem like there is a system setting to define the increment by value, but nothing per column.
What I would do in Oracle is just share the same sequence between the two tables. Another technique would be to set a STEP value of 2 in the auto_increment and start one at 1 and the other at 2. Either way, you're generating unique values between them.
You could create a third table that has nothing but the PK Column. This column could also provide the Autonumbering if there's no way of creating a skipping autonumber within one server. Then on each of your data tables you'd add CRUD triggers. An insert into either data table would first initiate an insert into the pseudo index table (and return the ID for use in the local table). Likewise a delete from the local table would initiate a delete from the pseudo index table. Any children tables which need to point to a parent point to this pseudo index table.
Note this will need to be a per row trigger and will slow down crud on these tables. But tables like "product" tend NOT to have a very high rate of DML in the first place. Anyone who complains about the "performance impact" is not considering scale.
Please note, this is provided as a functioning alternative and not my recommendation as the best way
You can't "share" a primary key.
Without knowing all the details, my best advice is to combine the tables into a single product table. Having optional fields that are populated for some products and not others is not necessarily a bad design.
Another option is to have a sort of inheritence model, where you have a single product table, and then two product "subtype" tables, which reference the main product table and have their own specialized set of fields. Querying this model is more painful than a single table IMHO, which is why I see it as the less-desirable option.
Your explanation is a little vague but, from my basic understanding I would be tempted to do this
The product table contains common fields
product
-------
product_id
name
...
the product_extra1 table and the product_extra2 table contain different fields
these tables habe a one to one relationship enforced between product.product_id and
product_extra1.product_id etc. Enforce the one to one relationship by setting the product_id in the Foreign key tables (product_extra1, etc) to be unique using a unique constraint.
you will need to decided on the business rules as to how this data is populated
product_extra1
---------------
product_id
extra_field1
extra_field2
....
product_extra2
---------------
product_id
different_extra_field1
different_extra_field2
....
Based on what you have above the product_category table is an intersecting table (1 to many - many to 1) which would imply that each product can be related to many categories
This can now stay the same.
This is yet another case of gen-spec.
See previous discussion
So imagine you have multiple tables in your database each with it's own structure and each with a PRIMARY KEY of it's own.
Now you want to have a Favorites table so that users can add items as favorites. Since there are multiple tables the first thing that comes in mind is to create one Favorites table per table:
Say you have a table called Posts with PRIMARY KEY (post_id) and you create a Post_Favorites with PRIMARY KEY (user_id, post_id)
This would probably be the simplest solution, but could it be possible to have one Favorites table joining across multiple tables?
I've though of the following as a possible solution:
Create a new table called Master with primary key (master_id). Add triggers on all tables in your database on insert, to generate a new master_id and write it along the row in your table. Also let's consider that we also write in the Master table, where the master_id has been used (on which table)
Now you can have one Favorites table with PRIMARY KEY (user_id, master_id)
You can select the Favorites table and join with each individual table on the master_id and get the the favorites per table. But would it be possible to get all the favorites with one query (maybe not a query, but a stored procedure?)
Do you think that this is a stupid approach? Since you will perform one query per table what are you gaining by having a single table?
What are your thoughts on the matter?
One way wold be to sub-type all possible tables to a generic super-type (Entity) and than link user preferences to that super-type. For example:
I think you're on the right track, but a table-based inheritance approach would be great here:
Create a table master_ids, with just one column: an int-identity primary key field called master_id.
On your other tables, (users as an example), change the user_id column from being an int-identity primary key to being just an int primary key. Next, make user_id a foreign key to master_ids.master_id.
This largely preserves data integrity. The only place you can trip up is if you have a master_id = 1, and with a user_id = 1 and a post_id = 1. For a given master_id, you should have only one entry across all tables. In this scenario you have no way of knowing whether master_id 1 refers to the user or to the post. A way to make sure this doesn't happen is to add a second column to the master_ids table, a type_id column. Type_id 1 can refer to users, type_id 2 can refer to posts, etc.. Then you are pretty much good.
Code "gymnastics" may be a bit necessary for inserts. If you're using a good ORM, it shouldn't be a problem. If not, stored procs for inserts are the way to go. But you're having your cake and eating it too.
I'm not sure I really understand the alternative you propose.
But in general, when given the choice of 1) "more tables" or 2) "a mega-table supported by a bunch of fancy code work" ..your interests are best served by more tables without the code gymnastics.
A Red Flag was "Add triggers on all tables in your database" each trigger fire is a performance hit of it's own.
The database designers have built in all kinds of technology to optimize tables/indexes, much of it behind the scenes without you knowing it. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Try these for inspiration Database Answers ..no affiliation to me.
An alternative to your approach might be to have the favorites table as user_id, object_id, object_type. When inserting in the favorites table just insert the type of the favorite. However i dont see a simple query being able to work with your approach or mine. One way to go about it might be to use UNION and get one combined resultset and then identify what type of record it is based on the type. Another thing you can do is, turn the UNION query into a MySQL VIEW and simply query that VIEW.
The benefit of using a single table for favorites is a simplicity, which some might consider as against the database normalization rules. But on the upside, you dont have to create so many favorites table and you can add anything to favorites easily by just coming up with a new object_type identifier.
It sounds like you have an is-a type relationship that needs to be modeled. All of the items that can be favourited are a type of "item". It sounds like you are on the right track, but I wouldn't use triggers. What could be the right answer if I have understood correctly, is to pull all the common fields into a single table called items (master is a poor name, master of what?), this should include all the common data that would be needed when you need a users favourite items, I'd expect this to include fields like item_id (primary key), item_type and human_readable_name and maybe some metadata about when the item was created, modified etc. Each of your specific item types would have its own table containing data specific to that item type with an item_id field that has a foreign key relationship to the item table. Then you'd wrap each item type in its own insertion, update and selection SPs (i.e. InsertItemCheese, UpdateItemMonkey, SelectItemCarKeys). The favourites table would then work as you describe, but you only need to select from the item table. If your app needs the specific data for each item type, it would have to be queried for each item (caching is your friend here).
If MySQL supports SPs with multiple result sets you could write one that outputs all the items as a result set, then a result set for each item type if you need all the specific item data in one go. For most cases I would not expect you to need all the data all the time.
Keep in mind that not EVERY use of a PK column needs a constraint. For example a logging table. Even though a logging table has a copy of the PK column from the table being logged, you can't build a constraint.
What would be the worst possible case. You insert a record for Oprah's TV show into the favorites table and then next year you delete the Oprah Show from the list of TV shows but don't delete that ID from the Favorites table? Will that break anything? Probably not. When you join favorites to TV shows that record will fall out of the result set.
There are a couple of ways to share values for PK's. Oracle has the advantage of sequences. If you don't have those you can add a "Step" to your Autonumber fields. There's always a risk though.
Say you think you'll never have more than 10 tables of "things which could be favored" Then start your PK's at 0 for the first table increment by 10, 1 for the second table increment by 10, 2 for the third... and so on. That will guarantee that all the values will be unique across those 10 tables. The risk is that a future requirement will add table 11. You can always 'pad' your guestimate