I'm building a PHP app to prefill third party PDF account forms with client data, and am getting stuck on the database design.
The current form has about 70 fields, which seems like far too many to set up as individual columns, especially as some (ie company/trust information) are not relevant depending on the type of account the client requires.
I've tried to normalize but it seems like there would be a lot of joins, and also require several sub queries for things like multiple addresses.
It also means a ton of extra queries to check if rows exist or not when updating to decide if the script needs to do an INSERT, a DELETE or an UPDATE, whereas if it was all in one row, it would basically just be an UPDATE each time.
Not sure if this helps but here is a list of most of the fields:
id, account_type, account_phone, account_email, account_designation, account_adviser, account_source, account_complete,
account_residential_unit_number, account_residential_street_number, account_residential_street_name, account_residential_street_type, account_residential_suburb, account_residential_state, account_residential_postcode,
account_postal_unit_number, account_postal_street_number, account_postal_street_name, account_postal_street_type, account_postal_suburb, account_postal_state, account_postal_postcode,
individual_1_title, individual_1_firstname, individual_1_middlename, individual_1_lastname, individual_1_dob, individual_1_occupation, individual_1_email, individual_1_phone,
individual_1_unit_number, individual_1_street_number, individual_1_street_name, individual_1_street_type, individual_1_suburb, individual_1_state, individual_1_postcode,
individual_2_title, individual_2_firstname, individual_2_middlename, individual_2_lastname, individual_2_dob, individual_2_occupation, individual_2_email, individual_2_phone,
individual_2_unit_number, individual_2_street_number, individual_2_street_name, individual_2_street_type, individual_2_suburb, individual_2_state, individual_2_postcode,
company_name, company_date,
company_unit_number, company_street_number, company_street_name, company_street_type, company_suburb, company_state, company_postcode,
trust_name, trust_date,
settlement_bank, settlement_account, settlement_bsb
The most this will need to handle is around 200,000 applications, and once the data is in the database, it won't change very often, if at all - not sure if that is relevant?
So really just wanted to figure out the smartest way to do design this, even if it's just a name or topic to research further.
Generally speaking you can divide a database into two broad categories:
OLTP Systems
Online Transaction Processing Systems are normally write intensive i.e. a lot of updates compared to the reads of the data. This system is typically a day to day application used by a business users of all scopes i.e. data capture, admin etc. These databases are usually normalized to the extreme and then certain demoralized for performance gains in certain areas.
OLAP/DSS system:
On Line Analytic Processing are database that are normally large data warehouse like systems. Used to support Analytic activities such as data mining, data cubes etc. Typically the information is used by a more limited set of users than OLTP. These database are normally very denormalised.
Go read here for a short description of these and the main differences.
OLTP VS OLAP
Regarding your INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE point go read about the MySQL ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE statement which will resolve that issue for you easily. It is called a MERGE operation in most database systems.
Now I dont understand why you are worried about JOINS. I have had tables with millions (500 000 000+) rows that I joined with other tables also large in size and the queries ran very fast. So designing a database to eliminate joins is NOT a good idea.
My suggestion is:
If designing a OLTP system normalise as much as possible then denormalise to increase performance where needed. For A OLAP system look at star schemas etc and dont even bother with normalizing it first. Oh by the way most of the OLAP systems normally use a OLTP system as a data source.
Usually I normalise and then denormalise for performance. However
If I didn't have too much validation to do e.g Valid address, duplicated indivual
And I didn't want to reuse parts of the data for another version of the form, e.g select an existing individual , Name and address etc
And I didn't want to analyse it e.g Find all mentions of Fred Bloggs
And my user's were happy with entering all of this one form ( I wouldn't be)
Then I'd go with denormalise from the get go.
Thing is if you normalise, then denormalising if required is fairly trivial and low risk, normalising denormalised data usually means de-duplication which is likely to be really painful data and design wise.
Normalize your input, de-normalize the output. Meaning, for reporting, extract your data into a de-normalized format like Mongo and use that for querying. Or, create rollups of some sort. I have found, with large datasets, to extract the reporting data from the input data for best efficiency.
I find denormalized data extremely painful to work with at a very basic level. What if I want a tally of the number of people who live in Georgia. In your denormalized structure I would have to count where ind_1_state = GA or ind_2_state = GA.
This is not too bad I guess, but to anywho who has seen the ease of querying that normalization provides, it is quite painful.
Normalization establishing the foundation for more and more complex queries. Without it, you will find it increasingly difficult to implement richer data analysis.
Normalization also provides the basis for integrity and consistency in your database. If you have all the occurrences of a particular thing ( state abbreviations ) in one place ( one column ) you can easily check and constrain those values to not allow nonexistent codes.
The rationale for normalization goes on and on, but I hope I hit a few no brainers.
This is no brainer - all you have now is a noun-soup which you have shoved in a single table-storage-shoebox and glued some ID at the beginning of each row.
Create some kind of schema. If this is more like a OLAP -- and you decide for star schema -- it will have dimensions in 2-5 NF and facts in 2-6 NF. For OLTP (or different warehouse models) aim for BCNF - 6NF.
I would argue that you do not even have 1NF here, gluing that ID at the beginning does not count as preventing duplicates. Therefore, you can not de-normalize from this point even if you wanted to :) -- ok, maybe you could put some comma-separated list somewhere to make things definitely not in 1NF.
Joins are what relational databases do, so do not worry about that.
Related
I want to create a table about "users" for each of the 50 states. Each state has about 2GB worth of data. Which option sounds better?
Create one table called "users" that will be 100GB large OR
Create 50 separate tables called "users_{state}", each which will be 2GB large
I'm looking at two things: performance, and style (best practices)
I'm also running RDS on AWS, and I have enough storage space. Any thoughts?
EDIT: From the looks of it, I will not need info from multiples states at the same time (i.e. won't need to frequently join tables if I go with Option 2). Here is a common use case: The front-end passes a state id to the back-end, and based on that id, I need to query data from the db regarding the specified state, and return data back to front-end.
Are the 50 states truly independent in your business logic? Meaning your queries would only need to run over one given state most of the time? If so, splitting by state is probably a good choice. In this case you would only need joining in relatively rarer queries like reporting queries and such.
EDIT: Based on your recent edit, this first option is the route I would recommend. You will get better performance from the table partitioning when no joining is required, and there are multiple other benefits to having the smaller partitioned tables like this.
If your queries would commonly require joining across a majority of the states, then you should definitely not partition like this. You'd be better off with one large table and just build the appropriate indices needed for performance. Most modern enterprise DB solutions are capable of handling the marginal performance impact going from 2GB to 100GB just fine (with proper indexing).
But if your queries on average would need to join results from only a handful of states (say no more than 5-10 or so), the optimal solution is a more complex gray area. You will likely be able to extract better performance from the partitioned tables with joining, but it may make the code and/or queries (and all coming maintenance) noticeably more complex.
Note that my answer assumes the more common access frequency breakdowns: high reads, moderate updates, low creates/deletes. Also, if performance on big data is your primary concern, you may want to check out NoSQL (for example, Amazon AWS DynamoDB), but this would be an invasive and fundamental departure from the relational system. But the NoSQL performance benefits can be absolutely dramatic.
Without knowing more of your model, it will be difficult for anyone to make judgement calls about performance, etc. However, from a data modelling point of view, when thinking about a normalized model I would expect to see a User table with a column (or columns, in the case of a compound key) which hold the foreign key to a State table. If a User could be associated with more than one state, I would expect another table (UserState) to be created instead, and this would hold the foreign keys to both User and State, with any other information about that relationship (for instance, start and end dates for time slicing, showing the timespan during which the User and the State were associated).
Rather than splitting the data into separate tables, if you find that you have performance issues you could use partitioning to split the User data by state while leaving it within a single table. I don't use MySQL, but a quick Google turned up plenty of reference information on how to implement partitioning within MySQL.
Until you try building and running this, I don't think you know whether you have a performance problem or not. If you do, following the above design you can apply partitioning after the fact and not need to change your front-end queries. Also, this solution won't be problematic if it turns out you do need information for multiple states at the same time, and won't cause you anywhere near as much grief if you need to look at User by some aspect other than State.
I'm struggling to find the best way to build out a structure that will work for my project. The answer may be simple but I'm struggling due to the massive number of columns or tables, depending on how it's set up.
We have several tools, each that can be run for many customers. Each tool has a series of questions that populate a database of answers. After the tool is run, we populate another series of data that is the output of the tool. We have roughly 10 tools, all populating a spreadsheet of 1500 data points. Here's where I struggle... each tool can be run multiple times, and many tools share the same data point. My next project is to build an application that can begin data entry for a tool, but allow import of data that shares the same datapoint for a tool that has already been run.
A simple example:
Tool 1 - company, numberofusers, numberoflocations, cost
Tool 2 - company, numberofusers, totalstorage, employeepayrate
So if the same company completed tool 1, I need to be able to populate "numberofusers" (or offer to populate) when they complete tool 2 since it already exists.
I think what it boils down to is, would it be better to create a structure that has 1500 tables, 1 for each data element with additional data around each data element, or to create a single massive table - something like...
customerID(FK), EventID(fk), ToolID(fk), numberofusers, numberoflocations, cost, total storage, employee pay,.....(1500)
If I go this route and have one large table I'm not sure how that will impact performance. Likewise - how difficult it will be to maintain 1500 tables.
Another dimension is that it would be nice to have a description of each field:
numberofusers,title,description,active(bool). I assume this is only possible if each element is in its own table?
Thoughts? Suggestions? Sorry for the lengthy question, new here.
Build a main table with all the common data: company, # users, .. other stuff. Give each row a unique id.
Build a table for each unique tool with the company id from above and any data unique to that implementation. Give each table a primary (unique key) for 'tool use' and 'company'.
This covers the common data in one place, identifies each 'customer' and provides for multiple uses of a given tool for each customer. Every use and customer is trackable and distinct.
More about normalization here.
I agree with etherbubunny on normalization but with larger datasets there are performance considerations that quickly become important. Joins which are often required in normalized databases to display human readable information can be performance killers on even medium sized tables which is why a lot of data warehouse models use de-normalized datasets for reporting. This is essentially pre-building the joined reporting data into new tables with heavy use of indexing, archiving and partitioning.
In many cases smart use of partitioning on its own can also effectively help reduce the size of the datasets being queried. This usually takes quite a bit of maintenance unless certain parameters remain fixed though.
Ultimately in your case (and most others) I highly recommend building it the way you are able to maintain and understand what is going on and then performing regular performance checks via slow query logs, explain, and performance monitoring tools like percona's tool set. This will give you insight into what is really happening and give you some data to come back here or the MySQL forums with. We can always speculate here but ultimately the real data and your setup will be the driving force behind what is right for you.
I'm currently designing a web application using php, javascript, and MySQL. I'm considering two options for the databases.
Having a master table for all the tournaments, with basic information stored there along with a tournament id. Then I would create divisions, brackets, matches, etc. tables with the tournament id appended to each table name. Then when accessing that tournament, I would simply do something like "SELECT * FROM BRACKETS_[insert tournamentID here]".
My other option is to just have generic brackets, divisions, matches, etc. tables with each record being linked to the appropriate tournament, (or matches to brackets, brackets to divisions etc.) by a foreign key in the appropriate column.
My concern with the first approach is that it's a bit too on the fly for me, and seems like the database could get messy very quickly. My concern with the second approach is performance. This program will hopefully have a national if not international reach, and I'm concerned with so many records in a single table, and with so many people possibly hitting it at the same time, it could cause problems.
I'm not a complete newb when it comes to database management; however, this is the first one I've done completely solo, so any and all help is appreciated. Thanks!
Do not create tables for each tournament. A table is a type of an entity, not an instance of an entity. Maintainability and scalability would be horrible if you mix up those concepts. You even say so yourself:
This program will hopefully have a national if not international reach, and I'm concerned with so many records in a single table, and with so many people possibly hitting it at the same time, it could cause problems.
How on Earth would you scale to that level if you need to create a whole table for each record?
Regarding the performance of your second approach, why are you concerned? Do you have specific metrics to back up those concerns? Relational databases tend to be very good at querying relational data. So keep your data relational. Don't try to be creative and undermine the design of the database technology you're using.
You've named a few types of entities:
Tournament
Division
Bracket
Match
Competitor
etc.
These sound like tables to me. Manage your indexes based on how you query the data (that is, don't over-index or you'll pay for it with inserts/updates/deletes). Normalize the data appropriately, de-normalize where audits and reporting are more prevalent, etc. If you're worried about performance then keep an eye on the query execution paths for the ways in which you access the data. Slight tweaks can make a big difference.
Don't pre-maturely optimize. It adds complexity without any actual reason.
First, find the entities that you will need to store; things like tournament, event, team, competitor, prize etc. Each of these entities will probably be tables.
It is standard practice to have a primary key for each of them. Sometimes there are columns (or group of columns) that uniquely identify a row, so you can use that as primary key. However, usually it's best just to have a column named ID or something similar of numeric type. It will be faster and easier for the RDBMS to create and use indexes for such columns.
Store the data where it belongs: I expect to see the date and time of an event in the events table, not in the prizes table.
Another crucial point is conforming to the First normal form, since that assures data atomicity. This is important because it will save you a lot of headache later on. By doing this correctly, you will also have the correct number of tables.
Last but not least: add relevant indexes to the columns that appear most often in queries. This will help a lot with performance. Don't worry about tables having too many rows, RDBMS-es these days handle table with hundreds of millions of rows, they're designed to be able to do that efficiently.
Beside compromising the quality and maintainability of your code (as others have pointed out), it's questionable whether you'd actually gain any performance either.
When you execute...
SELECT * FROM BRACKETS_XXX
...the DBMS needs to find the table whose name matches "BRACKETS_XXX" and that search is done in the DBMS'es data dictionary which itself is a bunch of tables. So, you are replacing a search within your tables with a search within data dictionary tables. You pay the price of the search either way.
(The dictionary tables may or may not be "real" tables, and may or may not have similar performance characteristics as real tables, but I bet these performance characteristics are unlikely to be better than "normal" tables for large numbers of rows. Also, performance of data dictionary is unlikely to be documented and you really shouldn't rely on undocumented features.)
Also, the DBMS would suddenly need to prepare many more SQL statements (since they are now different statements, referring to separate tables), which would present the additional pressure on performance.
The idea of creating new tables whenever a new instance of an item appears is really bad, sorry.
A (surely incomplete) list of why this is a bad idea:
Your code will need to automatically add tables whenever a new Division or whatever is created. This is definitely a bad practice and should be limited to extremely niche cases - which yours definitely isn't.
In case you decide to add or revise a table structure later (e.g. adding a new field) you will have to add it to hundreds of tables which will be cumbersome, error prone and a big maintenance headache
A RDBMS is built to scale in terms of rows, not tables and associated (indexes, triggers, constraints) elements - so you are working against your tool and not with it.
THIS ONE SHOULD BE THE REAL CLINCHER - how do you plan to handle requests like "list all matches which were played on a Sunday" or "find the most recent three brackets where Frank Perry was active"?
You say:
I'm not a complete newb when it comes to database management; however, this is the first one I've done completely solo...
Can you remember another project where tables were cloned whenever a new set was required? If yes, didn't you notice some problems with that approach? If not, have you considered that this is precisely what a DBA would never ever do for any reason whatsoever?
I am trying to apply for a job, which asks for the experiences on handling large scale data sets using relational database, like mySQL.
I would like to know which specific skill sets are required for handling large scale data using MySQL.
Handling large scale data with MySQL isn't just a specific set of skills, as there are a bazillion ways to deal with a large data set. Some basic things to understand are:
Column Indexes, how, why, and when they're used, and the pros and cons of using them.
Good database structure to balance between fast writes and easy reads.
Caching, leveraging several layers of caching and different caching technologies (memcached, redis, etc)
Examining MySQL queries to identify bottlenecks and understanding the MySQL internals to see how queries get planned an executed by the database server in order to increase query performance
Configuring the MySQL server to be able to handle a lot of concurrent connections, and access it's data fast. Hardware bottlenecks, and the advantages to using different technologies to speed up your hardware (for example, storing your MySQL data on a RAID5 Array to increase IO performance))
Leveraging built-in MySQL technology (like Replication) to off-load read traffic
These are just a few things that get thought about in regards to big data in MySQL. There's a TON more, which is why the company is looking for experience in the area. Knowing what to do, or having experience with things that have worked or failed for you is an absolutely invaluable asset to bring to a company that deals with high traffic, high availability, and high volume services.
edit
I would be remis if I didn't mention a source for more information. Check out High Performance MySQL. This is an incredible book, and has a plethora of information on how to make MySQL perform in all scenarios. Definitely worth the money, and the time spent reading it.
edit -- good structure for balanced writes and reads
With this point, I was referring to the topic of normalization / de-normalization. If you're familiar with DB design, you know that normalization is the separation of data as to reduce (eliminate) the amount of duplicate data you have about any single record. This is generally a fantastic idea, as it makes tables smaller, faster to query, easier to index (individually) and reduces the number of writes you have to do in order to create/update a new record.
There are different levels of normalization (as #Adam Robinson pointed out in the comments below) which are referred to as normal forms. Almost every web application I've worked with hasn't had much benefit beyond the 3NF (3rd Normal Form). Which the definition of, if you were to read that wikipedia link above, will probably make your head hurt. So in lamens (at the risk of dumbing it down too far...) a 3NF structure satisfies the following rules:
No duplicate columns within the same table.
Create different tables for each set related data. (Example: a Companies table which has a list of companies, and an Employees table which has a list of each companies' employees)
No sub-sets of columns which apply to multiple rows in a table. (Example: zip_code, state, and city is a sub-set of data which can be identified uniquely by zip_code. These 3 columns could be put in their own table, and referenced by the Employees table (in the previous example) by the zip_code). This eliminates large sets of duplication within your tables, so any change that is required to the city/state for any zip code is a single write operation instead of 1 write for every employee who lives in that zip code.
Each sub-set of data is moved to it's own table and is identified by it's own primary key (this is touched/explained in the example for #3).
Remove columns which are not fully dependent on the primary key. (An example here might be if your Employees table has start_date, end_date, and years_employed columns. The start_date and end_date are both unique and dependent on any single employee row, but the years_employed can be derived by subtracting start_date from end_date. This is important because as end-date increases, so does years_employed so if you were to update end_date you'd also have to update years_employed (2 writes instead of 1)
A fully normalized (3NF) database table structure is great, if you've got a very heavy write-load. If your server is doing a lot of writes, it's very easy to write small bits of data, especially when you're running fewer of them. The drawback is, all your reads become much more expensive, because you have to (typically) run a lot of JOIN queries when you're pulling data out. JOINs are typically expensive and harder to create proper indexes for when you're utilizing WHERE clauses that span the relationship and when sorting the result-sets If you have to perform a lot of reads (SELECTs) on your data-set, using a 3NF structure can cause you some performance problems. This is because as your tables grow you're asking MySQL to cram more and more table data (and indexes) into memory. Ideally this is what you want, but with big data-sets you're just not going to have enough memory to fit all of this at once. This is when MySQL starts to create temporary tables, and has to use the disk to load data and manipulate it. Once MySQL becomes reliant on the hard disk to serve up query results you're going to see a significant performance drop. This is less-so the case with solid state disks, but they are super expensive, and (imo) are not mature enough to use on mission critical data sets yet (i mean, unless you're prepared for them to fail and have a very fast backup recovery system in place...then use them and gonuts!).
This is the balancing part. You have to decide what kind of traffic the data you're reading/writing is going to be serving more of, and design that to be fast. In some instances, people don't mind writes being slow because they happen less frequently. In other cases, writes have to be very fast, and the reads don't have to be fast because the data isn't accessed that often (or at all, or even in real time).
Workloads that require a lot of reads benefit the most from a middle-tier caching layer. The idea is that your writes are still fast (because you're 'normal') and your reads can be slow because you're going to cache it (in memcached or something competitive to it), so you don't hit the database very frequently. The drawback here is, if your cache gets invalidated quickly, then the cache is not reducing the read load by a meaningful amount and that results in no added performance (and possibly even more overhead to check/invalidate the caches).
With workloads that have the requirement for high throughput in writes, with data that is read frequently, and can't be cached (constantly changes), you have to come up with another strategy. This could mean that you start to de-normalize your tables, by removing some of the normalization requirements you choose to satisfy, or something else. Instead of making smaller tables with less repetitive data, you make larger tables with more repetitive / redundant data. The advantage here is that your data is all in the same table, so you don't have to perform as many (or, any) JOINs to pull the data out. The drawback...writes are more expensive because you have to write in multiple places.
So with any given situation the developer(s) have to identify what kind of use the data structure is going to have to serve, and balance between any number of technologies and paradigms to achieve an acceptable solution that meets their needs. No two systems or solutions are the same which is why the employer is looking for someone with experience on how to deal with these large datasets. Finding these solutions is not something that can really be learned out of a book, it typically takes some experience in the field and experience with how different solutions performed.
I hope that helps. I know I rambled a bit, but it's really a lot of information. This is why DBAs make the big dollars (:
You need to know how to process the data in "chunks". That means instead of simply trying to manipulate the entire data set, you need to break it into smaller more manageable pieces. For example, if you had a table with 1 Billion records, a single update statement against the entire table would likely take a long time to complete, and may possibly bring the server to it's knees.
You could, however, issue a series of update statements within a loop that would update 20,000 records at a time. Each iteration of the loop you would increment your range/counters/whatever to identify the next set of records.
Also, you commit your changes at the end of each loop, thereby allowing you to stop the process and continue where you left off.
This is just one aspect of managing large data sets. You still need to know:
how to perform backups
proper indexing
database maintenance
You can raed/learn how to handle large dataset with MySQL But it is not equivalent to having actual experiences.
Straight and simple answer: Study about partitioned database and find appropriate MySQL data structure types for large scale datasets similar with the partitioned database architecture.
We're drawing up the database structure with the help of mySQL Workbench for a new app and the number of joins required to make a listing of the data is increasing drastically as the many-to-many relationships increases.
The application will be quite read-heavy and have a couple of hundred thousand rows per table.
The questions:
Is it really that bad to merge tables where needed and thereby reducing joins?
Should we start looking at horizontal partitioning? (in conjunction with merging tables)
Is there a better way then pivot tables to take care of many-to-many relationships?
We discussed about instead storing all data in serialized text columns and having the application make the sorting instead of the database, but this seems like a very bad idea, even though that the database will be heavily cached. What do you think?
Go with the normalized form of the database. For most part of the tasks you won't need more than 3 or 4 Joins and you still can write views for the most common joins. Denormalization will have you to always think of updating fields in multiple places/tables when changing one property and will surely lead to more problems than benefits.
If you worry about reporting performance then you still can extract the data in timed batches into separate tables to get the desired performance for your reporting queries. If it's for query simplicity you can use views.
In inverse order:
Forget it. Use the database. People saynig "make it in the application" are pretty often those ignorant to the amount of work going into writing databases.
Depends on exact need.
Depends on exact need. OLTP (Transaction processing) - go for for firth normal form. OLAP (Analytical processing) - go for a proper star diagram and denormalize to get optimal performance. Mixed - forget it. Does not work for larger installs because the theories are different... except if you make the database OLTP and then use a special OLAP cube database (which mySQL does not have).
Databases are designed to handle lots of joins. Use this feature as it will make many kinds of data manipulation in the database much easier. Otherwise, why not just use a flat file?
As always, it depends on your application, but in general, too much denormalisation can come back and bite you later on. A well normalised database means that you should be able to query your data in most ways that you may need later on, particularly for reporting (which often is an afterthought).
If you stick all your data in serialized text columns and your client asks for a report showing all rows that have a particular attribute, then you're going to have to do a bunch of string manipulation to get this data out.
If you're worried about too many joins for your queries, you could consider exposing certain sets of the data as a view...
If you make sure to index the foreign keys (you did set up foreign keys didn't you?) and have proper where clauses in your queries, 10-15 joins should be easily handled by a database. Especially with so few rows. I have queries with that many joins on tables with millions of rows and they run fine.
Usually it is better to partition data than to denormalize.
As far as denomalizing goes, don't do it unless you also institute a strategy for keeping the denormalized data in synch with the parent table.
As to whether you really need that many tables or if your design is bad, well the only way we could comment on that is if we saw the table structure.
Unless you have clear evidence that performance is suffering because of the joins, stay normalised. Otherwise, as others have said, you'll have to worry about multiple updates.
Especially if the database is heavily cached, as you say, you'll be surprised how quick the DBMS is at doing this kind of thing - it is what it's designed for, after all.
Unless it's the sort of monster application, with huge amounts of data, that demands special performance optimisations, you'll find that keeping down the development, testing, and later, maintenance effort, will be much more important.
Joins are good, usually, not bad. They allow you to keep the data where it should be, which gives you maximum flexibility.
And as has been said many times, premature optimisation is usually bad, not good.