I am a reasonably competent SQL programmer but my skills are still pretty much in the domain of simple INSERT, SELECT, UPDATE statements with an occasional LIKE etc thrown in. What I am currently trying to do is rather more complex. Here is the scenario.
I have three tables.
Table 1, *users* identifies users via a User ID, uid. Users can have one or more sub accounts
Table 2 *accounts* keeps a record of subaccounts for each user with, amongst other things the columns uid and sid where uid is the one defined in the *users* table.
Table 3, *data* is currently storing some data, in a data column that is being associated with a particular subaccount, sid.
The thing I have just realized is that there is no particular reason to block users from using those data across subaccounts. No problem - I can change my data subset search SQL to work with the uid instead. However, given the frequency of such searches, it seems well worth while simply sticking in a uid column in *data*.
To do that I would need to write some smart SQL that would get uid,sid pairs from the *accounts* table and use that information to update the newly created uid column in the data table. This I have to admit is beyond my knowledge of SQL.
I should mention that the system using these data is now in production and has several 100s of users so the option of just acting like they are not there is not available. Not terribly relevant I think but I should mention that uid and sid are alphanumeric strinsg with both columns being indexed.
I would be most grateful to anyone here who might be able to help out with it.
Mysql can do updates based on joins and based on reading of your schema here's what I'd do...
UPDATE accounts a, data d
set d.uid=a.uid
where a.sid=d.sid
and d.uid is NULL
Related
So I am building a swingers site. The users can search other users by their interests. This is only part of a number of parameters used to search a user. The thing is there are like 100 different interests. When searching another user they can select all the interests the user must share. While I can think of ways to do this, I know it is important the search be as efficient as possible.
The backend uses jdbc to connect to a mysql database. Java is the backend programming language.
I have debated using multiple columns for interests but generating the thing is the sql query need not check them all if those columns are not addressed in the json object send to the server telling it the search criteria. Also I worry i may have to make painful modifications to the table at a later point if i add new columns.
Another thing I thought about was having some kind of long byte array, or number (used like a byte array) stored in a single column. I could & this with another number corresponding to the interests the user is searching for but I read somewhere this is actually quite inefficient despite it making good sense to my mind :/
And all of this has to be part of one big sql query with multiple tables joined into it.
One of the issues with me using multiple columns would be the compiting power used to run statement.setBoolean on what could be 40 columns.
I thought about generating an xml string in the client then processing that in the sql query.
Any suggestions?
I think the correct term is a Bitmask. I could maybe have one table for the bitmask that maps the users id to the bitmask for querying users interests, and another with multiple entries for each interest per user id for looking up which user has which interests efficiently if I later require this?
Basically, it would be great to have a separate table with all the interests, 2 columns: id and interest.
Then, have a table that links the user to the interests: user_interests which would have the following columns: id,user_id,interest_id. Here some knowledge about many-to-many relations would help a lot.
Hope it helps!
I have a table Things and I want to add ownership relations to a table Users. I need to be able to quickly query the owners of a thing and the things a user owns. If I know that there will be at most 50 owners, and the pdf for the number of owners will probably look like this, should I rather
add 50 columns to the Things table, like CoOwner1Id, CoOwner2Id, …, CoOwner50Id, or
should I model this with a Ownerships table which has UserId and ThingId columns, or
would it better to create a table for each thing, for example Thing8321Owners with a row for each owner, or
perhaps a combination of these?
The second choice is the correct one; you should create an intermediate table between the table Things and the table Owners (that contains the details of each owner).
This table should have the thing_id and the owner_id as the primary key.
So finally, you well have 3 tables:
Things (the things details and data)
Owner (the owners details and data)
Ownerships (the assignment of each thing_id to an owner_id)
Because in a relational DB you should not have any redundant data.
You should definitely go with option 2 because what you are trying to model is a many to many relationship. (Many owners can relate to a thing. Many things can relate to an owner.) This is commonly accomplished using what I call a bridging table. (Which exactly what option 2 is.) It is a standard technique in a normalized database.
The other two options are going to give you nightmares trying to query or maintain.
With option 1 you'll need to join the User table to the Thing table on 50 columns to get all of your results. And what happens when you have a really popular thing that 51 people want to own?
Option 3 is even worse. The only way to easily query the data is to use dynamic sql or write a new query each time because you don't know which Thing*Owners table to join on until you know the ID value of the thing you're looking for. Or you're going to need to join the User table to every single Thing*Owners table. Adding a new thing means creating a whole new table. But at least a thing doesn't have a limit on the number of owners it could possibly have.
Now isn't this:
SELECT Users.Name, Things.Name
FROM Users
INNER JOIN Ownership ON Users.UserId=Ownership.UserId
INNER JOIN Things ON Things.ThingId=Ownership.ThingId
much easier than any of those other scenarios?
I have a database with two tables. The first one contains the user_name, user_password, user_email. The second one contains the user_name, user_age, user_description.
When a person finds the user he needs by the user_name, the script looks through the database using the user_name, to give out the information about certain user.
But if the person changes his user_name via preferences, the value changes only in the first table.
Question:
1) Is there a way to make the user_name in the second table change automatically? (To connect them some how)
I am using MySQL (phpMyAdmin).
This is just a simple example. In "real world" I am trying to manage more serious applications that have more tables. Is there an easier way than to create a separate php query for each table?
You could always create an AFTER UPDATE MySQL trigger targeting single rows for this. See the manual. It's probably not easier than using separate PHP queries for the tables, though. You don't need to spell them all out, just map up what needs to be synchronized when, and abstract your code.
However I'd recommend that you use a unique ID field for the user and only store the username in one of the tables -- and refer to the user with the ID under the hood of your code, and in both tables. Not a good idea to use something changeable as a unique identifier in your database design.
I hope someone can help me with this:
I have a simple query combining a list of names and basic details with another table containing more specific information. Some names will necessarily appear more than once and arbitrary distinctions like "John Smith 1" and "John Smith 2" are not an option, so I have been using an autonumber to keep the records distinct.
The problem is that my query is creating two records for each name that appears more than once. For example, there are two clients named 'Sophoan', each with a different id number, and the query has picked up each one twice resulting in four records (in total there are 122 records when there should only be 102). 'Unique values' is set to 'yes'.
I've researched as much as I can and am completely stuck. I've tried to tinker with sql but it always comes back with errors, I presume because there are too many fields in the query.
What am I missing? Or is a query the wrong approach and I need to find another way to combine my tables?
Project in detail: I'm building a database for a charity which has two main activities: social work and training. The database is to record their client information and the results of their interactions with clients (issues they asked for help with, results of training workshops etc.). Some clients will cross over between activities which the organisation wants to track, hence all registered clients go into one list and individual tables spin of that to collect data for each specific activity the client takes part in. This query is supposed to be my solution for combining these tables for data entry by the user.
At present I have the following tables:
AllList (master list of client names and basic contact info; 'Social Work Register' and 'Participant Register' join to this table by
'Name')
Social Work Register (list of social work clients with full details
of each case)
Social Work Follow-up Table (used when staff call social work clients
to see how their issue is progressing; the register has too many
columns to hold this as well; joined to Register by 'Client Name')
Participants Register (list of clients for training and details of
which workshops they were attended and why they were absent if they
missed a session)
Individual workshop tables x14 (each workshop includes a test and
these tables records the clients answers and their score for each
individual test; there will be more than 20 of these when the
database is finished; all joined to the 'Participants Register' by
'Participant Name')
Queries:
Participant Overview Query (links the attendance data from the 'Register' with the grading data from each Workshop to present a read-only
overview; this one seems to work perfectly)
Social Work Query (non-functional; intended to link the 'Client
Register' to the 'AllList' for data entry so that when a new client
is registered it creates a new record in both tables, with the
records matched together)
Participant Query (not yet attempted; as above, intended to link the
'Participant Register' to the 'AllList' for data entry)
BUT I realised that queries can't be used for data entry, so this approach seems to be a dead end. I have had some success with using subforms for data entry but I'm not sure if it's the best way.
So, what I'm basically hoping to achieve is a way to input the same data to two tables simultaneously (for new records) and have the resulting records matched together (for new entries to existing records). But it needs to be possible for the same name to appear more than once as a unique record (e.g. three individuals named John Smith).
[N.B. There are more tables that store secondary information but aren't relevant to the issue as they are not and will not be linked to any other tables.]
I realised that queries can't be used for data entry
Actually, non-complex queries are usually editable as long as the table whose data you want to edit remains 'at the core' of the query. Access applies a number of factors to determine if a query is editable or not.
Most of the time, it's fairly easy to figure out why a query has become non-editable.
Ask yourself the question: if I edit that data, how will Access ensure that exactly that data will be updated, without ambiguity?
If your tables have defined primary keys and these are part of your query, and if there are no grouping, calculated fields (fields that use some function to change or test the value of that field), or complex joins, then the query should remain editable.
You can read more about that here:
How to troubleshoot errors that may occur when you update data in Access queries and in Access forms
Dealing with Non-Updateable Microsoft Access Queries and the Use of Temporary Tables.
So, what I'm basically hoping to achieve is a way to input the same data to two tables simultaneously (for new records) and have the resulting records matched together (for new entries to existing records). But it needs to be possible for the same name to appear more than once as a unique record (e.g. three individuals named John Smith).
This remark actually proves that you have design issues in your database.
A basic tenet of Database Design is to remove redundancy as much as possible. One of the reasons is actually to avoid having to update the same data in multiple places.
Another remark: you are using the Client's name as a Natural Key. Frankly, it is not a very good idea. Generally, you want to make sure that what constitutes a Primary key for a table is reliably unique over time.
Using people's names is generally the wrong choice because:
people change name, for instance in many cultures, women change their family name after they get married.
There could also have been a typo when entering the name and now it can be hard to correct it if that data is used as a Foreign Key all in different tables.
as your database grows, you are likely to end up with some people having the same name, creating conflicts, or forcing the user to make changes to that name so it doesn't create a duplicate.
The best way to enforce uniqueness of records in a table is to use the default AutoNumber ID field proposed by Access when you create a new table. This is called a Surrogate key.
It's not mean to be edited, changed or even displayed to the user. It's sole purpose is to allow the primary key of a table to be unique and non-changing over time, so it can reliably be used as a way to reference a record from one table to another (if a table needs to refer to a particular record, it will contain a field that will hold that ID. That field is called a Foreign Key).
The names you have for your tables are not precise enough: think of each table as an Entity holding related data.
The fact that you have a table called AllList means that its purpose isn't that well-thought of; it sounds like a catch-all rather than a carefully crafted entity.
Instead, if this is your list of clients, then simply call it Client. Each record of that table holds the information for a single client (whether to use plural or singular is up to you, just stick to your choice though, being consistent is hugely important).
Instead of using the client's name as a key, create an ID field, an Autonumber, and set it as Primary Key.
Let's also rename the "Social Work Register", which holds the Client's cases, simply as ClientCase. That relationship seems clear from your description of the table but it's not clear in the table name itself (by the way, I know Access allows spaces in table and field names, but it's a really bad idea to use them if you care at least a little bit about the future of your work).
In that, create a ClientID Number field (a Foreign Key) that will hold the related Client's ID in the ClientCase table.
You don't talk about the relationship between a Client and its Cases. This is another area where you must be clear: how many cases can a single Client have?
At most 1 Case ? (0 or 1 Case)
exactly 1 Case?
at least one Case? (1 or more Cases)
any number of Cases? (0 or more Cases)
Knowing this is important for selecting the right type of JOIN in your queries. It's a crucial part of the design assumptions when building your database.
For instance, in the most general case, assuming that a Client can have 0 or more cases, you could have a report that displays the Client's Name and the number of cases related to them like this:
SELECT Client.Name,
Count(ClientCase.ID) AS CountOfCases
FROM Client
LEFT JOIN ClientCase
ON Client.ID = ClienCase.ClientID
GROUP BY Client.Name
You've described your basic design a bit more, but that's not enough. Show us the actual table structures and the SQL of the queries you tried. From the description you give, it's hard to really understand the actual details of the design and to tell you why it fails and how to make it work.
I have 200 users each user will eventually have a "reviewINFO" table with certain data.
Each user will have a review every 3 to 4 months
So for every review, it creates a new row inside the "reviewINFO" table.
This is where i'm stuck. I'm not sure if I need to serialize a table inside each row or not.
Example:
-> links
"USER1reviewINFO"-row1->USER1table1
-row2->USER1table2
-row3->USER1table3
-row4->USER1table4
-row5->USER1table5
"USER2reviewINFO"-row1->USER2table1
-row2->USER2table2
-row3->USER2table3
-row4->USER2table4
-row5->USER2table5
using this method it will make a couple of thousand rows within two years. And I think its harder to manage.
"Userxtablex" is a table with dynamic rows of children names,ages,boolean
What i'm think of doing is serialize each USERxtable into its corresponding row.
Please help as I would not like to make this complicate or inefficient
Generally, you should never have to serialize data of this nature into a table row to accomplish what your goal is (which I am assuming is an implicit link between a user and a review)
What you need to do is key the reviews by a user_id such that all the reviews are packaged in one table, and relate numerically back to the users table.
Assuming you have an AUTO_INCREMENT primary key in the user table, all you would need is a user_id field in the reviews table that represents what user the review relates to. There is no need for a separate structure for each user, if that's what you are suggesting. Reviews can have date fields as well, so you can perform queries for a specific year or window of time.
You can then use a JOIN query to select out your data set relating to a particular user or review, and apply the usual WHERE clause to determine what result set you want to fetch.