I am creating an app for a library. I need to create a database containing details about all the books in the library and the members in the library. I need to maintain a table that connects a person with the books he has read. Each book has a unique id as well the member. I need to track each book taken by the person and recommend books based on his interests. Also i have to track the time required by the person to complete a book. I have only basic knowledge about databases and that too about MySQL only. If I'm right you cannot have multiple values for a field in MySQL. I thought of creating a table for mapping a person with the books he/she has lended. But the problem with such an approach is that the size of the table increases uncontrollably. Is there any other approach that I'm missing that can make my database simpler? I need to frequently search for content from the database. So the table must be as small as possible.
I'm also ready to learn any other language other than MySQL if my requirement is not accomplished by it.
The standard approach would indeed be to create a "join" table that maps people to books. Such a table may have many rows, but each row should only consist of a few columns -- person id, book id, timestamp loaned, timestamp completed.
It is not uncommon to have MySQL tables with millions of rows. Don't worry about that. Make sure to index the person id and book id, and you'll be fine.
You can use this aproach: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!2/33b45/1
You need three tables: books, members, lendings. The code is in the fiddle.
Related
i wanted to get your expert opinion about this dilema chosing bewteen JSON or Pivot Table
Let just say we have 2 tables here
people
jobs
A person may have multiple jobs, alas, a jobs might have multiple person subscirbed to it.
What is the best approach to it?
Method 1: JSON
I would have jobs column in people table, that contain json array of that person's jobs id, example : [1,2,4]
Method 2: Pivot
I would create pivot table job_person with job_id and person_id column, well, you know Laravel Eloquent style many to many pivot table
I have done some searching, and i found articels favouring each method, some say JSON better because it musch simpler, others would say Pivot is better due to that is how relationship database should work, etc etc.
But i want to know, which one should i use in what scenario? Like if it is just simple case like above scenario, JSON would be better?
What if there are other variables included like additional pivot columns
(Maybe each pivot also contain status column that can be set to active or past_job)
Or what if in the future we want to be able to get all peoples whom have a specific jobs, in which case Pivot would be preferable i think.
What if instead of jobs, the other table would be books and a person can have an extensive of books making we might have tens, or even hundreed pivot records just for one person? And there will be another hundreed persons?
What if instead of books, the other table were stocks in which case, a person might subscribed / unsubscribed multiple stock multiple times?
And maybe to the basic principle, what is each one's advantages/disadvantages?
Thank you very much
I would rather not choose JSON, as there's no benefit from choosing it, you will sacrifice many of the database features and make querying the data difficult and slow.
What if there are other variables included like additional pivot
columns (Maybe each pivot also contain status column that can be set
to active or past_job)
Job and Person are not dependent on each others, so you need to create an associative table between them something like "PersonJob" and add necessary information to it, this is easy to traverse in Laravel.
Or what if in the future we want to be able to get all peoples whom
have a specific jobs, in which case Pivot would be preferable i think.
You could easily query this using the associative table.
And maybe to the basic principle, what is each one's
advantages/disadvantages?
it just that relational databases are made for this kind of stuff and JSON offer no value just hardship.
I have two sets of data that are near identical, one set for books, the other for movies.
So we have things such as:
Title
Price
Image
Release Date
Published
etc.
The only difference between the two sets of data is that Books have an ISBN field and Movies has a Budget field.
My question is, even though the data is similar should both be combined into one table or should they be two separate tables?
I've looked on SO at similar questions but am asking because most of the time my application will need to get a single list of both books and movies. It would be rare to get either books or movies. So I would need to lookup two tables for most queries if the data is split into two tables.
Doing this -- cataloging books and movies -- perfectly is the work of several lifetimes. Don't strive for perfection, because you'll likely never get there. Take a look at Worldcat.org for excellent cataloging examples. Just two:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/coco/oclc/1149151811
https://www.worldcat.org/title/designing-data-intensive-applications-the-big-ideas-behind-reliable-scalable-and-maintainable-systems/oclc/1042165662
My suggestion: Add a table called metadata. your titles table should have a one-to-many relationship with your metadata table.
Then, for example, titles might contain
title_id title price release
103 Designing Data-Intensive Applications 34.96 2017
104 Coco 34.12 2107
Then metadata might contain
metadata_id title_id key value
1 103 ISBN-13 978-1449373320
2 103 ISBN-10 1449373320
3 104 budget USD175000000
4 104 EIDR 10.5240/EB14-C407-C74B-C870-B5B6-C
5 104 Sound Designer Barney Jones
Then, if you want to get items with their ISBN-13 values (I'm not familiar with IBAN, but I guess that's the same sort of thing) you do this
SELECT titles.*, isbn13.value isbn13
FROM titles
LEFT JOIN metadata isbn13 ON titles.title_id = metadata.title_id
AND metadata.key='ISBN-13'
This is a good way to go because it's future-proof. If somebody turns up tomorrow and wants, let's say, the name of the most important character in the book or movie, you can add it easily.
The only difference between the two sets of data is that Books have an
IBAN field and Movies has a Budget field.
Are you sure that this difference that you have now will not be
extended to other differences that you may have to take into account
in the future?
Are you sure that you will not have to deal with any other type of
entities (other than books and movies) in the future which will
complicate things?
If the answer in both questions is "Yes" then you could use 1 table.
But if I had to design this, I would keep a separate table for each entity.
If needed, it's easy to combine their data in a View.
What is not easy, is to add or modify columns in a table, even naming them, just to match requirements of 2 or more entities.
You must be very sure about future requests/features for your application.
I can't image what type of books linked with movies you store thus a lot of movies have different titles than books which are based on. Example: 25 films that changed the name.
If you are sure that your data will be persistent and always the same for books and movies then you can create new table for example Productions and there store attributes Title, Price, Image, Release Date, Published. Then you can store foreign keys of Production entity in your tables Books and Movies.
But if any accident happen in the future you will need to rebuild structure or change your assumptions. But anyway it will be easier with entity Production. Then you just create new row with modified values and assign to selected Book or Movie.
Solution with one table for both books and movies is the worst, because if one of the parameters drive away you will add new row and you will have data for first set (real book and non-existing movie) and second set (non-existing book and real movie).
Of course everything is under condition they may be changes in the future. If you are 100% sure, then 1 table is enough solution, but not correct from the database normalization perspective.
I would personally create separate tables for books and movies.
Being new to relational database design, I am trying to clarify one piece of information to properly design this database. Although I am using Filemaker as the platform, I believe this is a universal question.
Using the logic of ideally having all one to many relationships, and using separate tables or join tables to solve these.
I have a database with multiple products, made by multiple brands, in multiple product categories. I also want this to be as scale-able as possible when it comes to reporting, being able to slice and dice the data in as many ways as possible since the needs of the users are constantly changing.
So when I ask the question "Does each Brand have multiple products" I get a yes, and "Does each product have multiple brands" the answer is no. So this is a one to many relationship, but it also seems that a self-join table might give me everything that I need.
This methodology also seems to go down a rabbit hole for other "product related" information such as product category, each product is tied to one product category, but only one product category is related to a product.
So I see 2 possibilities, make three tables and join them with primary and foreign keys, one for Brand, one for Product Category, and one for Products.
Or the second possibility is to create one table that has the brand and product category and product info all in one table (since they are all product related) and simply do self-joins and other query based tables to give me the future reporting requirements that will be changing over time.
I am looking for input from experiences that might point me in the right direction.
Thanks in advance!
Could you ever want to store additional information about a brand (company URL, phone number, etc.) or about a product category (description, etc.)?
If the answer is yes, you definitely want to use three tables. If you don't, you'll be repeating all that information for every single item that belongs to the same brand or same category.
If the answer is no, there is still an advantage to using three tables - it will prevent typos or other spelling inconsistencies from getting into your database. For example, it would prevent you from writing a brand as "Coca Cola" for some items and as "Coca-Cola" for other items. These inconsistencies get harder and harder to find and correct as your database grows. By having each brand only listed once in it's own table, it will always be written the same way.
The disadvantage of multiple tables is the SQL for your queries is more complicated. There's definitely a tradeoff, but when in doubt, normalize into multiple tables. You'll learn when it's better to de-normalize with more experience.
I am not sure where do you see a room for a self-join here. It seems to me you are saying: I have a table of products; each product has one brand and one (?) category. If that's the case then you need either three tables:
Brands -< Products >- Categories
or - in Filemaker only - you can replace either or both the Brands and the Categories tables with a value list (assuming you won't be renaming brands/categories and at the expense of some reporting capabilities). So really it depends on what type of information you want to get out in the end.
If you truly want your solution to be scalable you need to parse and partition your data now. Otherwise you will be faced with the re-structuring of the solution down the road when the solution grows in size. You will also be faced with parsing and relocating the data to new tables. Since you've also included the SQL and MySQL tags if you plan on connecting Filemaker to an external data source then you will definitely need to up your game structurally.
Building everything in one table is essentially using Filemaker to do Excel work and it won't cut it if you are connecting to SQL, MySQL, etc.
Self join tables are a great tool. However, they should really only be used for calculating small data points and should not be used as pivot points or foundations for your reporting features. It can grow out of control as time goes on and you need to keep your backend clean.
Use summary and sub-summary reporting features to slice product based data.
For retail and general product management solutions, whether it's Filemaker/SQL/or whatever the "Brand" or "Vendor" is it's own table. Then you would have a "Products" table (the match key being the "Brand ID").
The "Product Category" field should be a field in the "Products" table. You can manage the category values by building a standard value list or building a value list based on a "Product Category" table. The second scenario is better for long term administration.
I'm creating a web application, and I have an issue trying to figure out how to layout the database tables.
I'm not much of a databases guy, but here's the issue:
For example, I want the application to be have two interfaces. First one, you create a new book. Second one, you write a new entry / page in that book (or another).
I thought of having these three tables:
Books, Authors, Entries.
Books
book_id
author_id
title
Entries
id
author_id
text
datetime
book_id
Authors
author_id
fullname
username
Of course, tables are not complete. But I'm lost on how to build the relationships between tables well. I want the author to be able to create a new book (this is by creating first entry/page in that book, so Entries table has a new record, as well as Books.) Or, to add an entry/page to a book.
Also, I'm not sure if Books table should have an entry_id column to track/count entries/pages in that book.
I know it might sound vague. But I didn't know what exactly to Google or specifically ask about. If there's a concept in SQL or a good book for a web programmer (I'm good at PHP) that focuses on building web applications with rather complex relations in database, that you can tell me about, would be much appreciated.
Thank you.
I don't think that the relations are complex: an author can create a book and a book can contain entries. Your schema allows the possibility that anybody can create an entry in a book that they didn't create - if you don't want this, then remove the 'author_id' field from the 'entries' table.
But what is your real question?
this is a follow-up question on my previous one.We junior year students are doing website development for the univeristy as volunteering work.We are using PHP+MySQL technique.
Now I am mainly responsible for the database development using MySQL,but I am a MySQL designer.I am now asking for some hints on writing my first table,to get my hands on it,then I could work well with other tables.
The quesiton is like this,the first thing our website is going to do is to present a Survey to the user to collect their preference on when they want to use the bus service.
and this is where I am going to start my database development.
The User Requirement Document specifies that for the survey,there should be
Customer side:
Survery will be available to customers,with a set of predefined questions and answers and should be easy to fill out
Business side:
Survery info. will be stored,outputed and displayable for analysis.
It doesnt sound too much work,and I dont need to care about any PHP thing,but I am just confused on :should I just creat a single table called " Survery",or two tables "Survey_business" and "Survey_Customer",and how can the database store the info.?
I would be grateful if you guys could give me some help so I can work along,because the first step is always the hardest and most important.
Thanks.
I would use multiple tables. One for the surveys themselves, and another for the questions. Maybe one more for the answer options, if you want to go with multiple-choice questions. Another table for the answers with a record per question per answerer. The complexity escalates as you consider multiple types of answers (choice, fill-in-the-blank single-line, free-form multiline, etc.) and display options (radio button, dropdown list, textbox, yada yada), but for a simple multiple-choice example with a single rendering type, this would work, I think.
Something like:
-- Survey info such as title, publish dates, etc.
create table Surveys
(
survey_id number,
survey_title varchar2(200)
)
-- one record per question, associated with the parent survey
create table Questions
(
question_id number,
survey_id number,
question varchar2(200)
)
-- one record per multiple-choice option in a question
create table Choices
(
choice_id number,
question_id number,
choice varchar2(200)
)
-- one record per question per answerer to keep track of who
-- answered each question
create table Answers
(
answer_id number,
answerer_id number,
choice_id number
)
Then use application code to:
Insert new surveys and questions.
Populate answers as people take the surveys.
Report on the results after the survey is in progress.
You, as the database developer, could work with the web app developer to design the queries that would both populate and retrieve the appropriate data for each task.
only 1 table, you'll change only the way you use the table for each ocasion
customers side insert data into the table
business side read the data and results from the same table
Survey.Customer sounds like a storage function, while Survey.Business sounds like a retrieval function.
The only tables you need are for storage. The retrieval operations will take place using queries and reports of the existing storage tables, so you don't need additional tables for those.
Use a single table only. If you were to use two tables, then anytime you make a change you would in effect have to do everything twice. That's a big pain for maintenance for you and anyone else who comes in to do it in the future.
most of the advice/answers so far are applicable but make certain (unstated!) assumptions about your domain
try to make a logical model of the entities and attributes that are required to capture the requirements, examine the relationships, consider how the data will be used on both sides of the process, and then design the tables. Talk to the users, talk to the people that will be running the reports, talk to whoever is designing the user interface (screens and reports) to get the complete picture.
pay close attention the the reporting requirements, as they often imply additional attributes and entities not extant in the data-entry schema
i think 2 tables needed:
a survey table for storing questions and choices for answer. each survey will be stored in one row with a unique survey id
other table is for storing answers. i think its better to store each customers answer in one row with a survey id and a customer id if necessary.
then you can compute results and store them in a surveyResults view.
Is the data you're presenting as the questions and answers going to be dynamic? Is this a long-term project that's going to have questions swapped in and out? If so, you'll probably want to have the questions and answers in your database as well.
The way I'd do it would be to define your entities and figure out how to design your tables so relationships are straightforward. Sounds to me like you have three entities:
Question
Answer
Completed Survey
Just a sample elaboration of what Steven and Chris has mentioned above.
There are gonna be multiple tables, if there are gonna be multiple surveys, and each survey has a different set of questions, and if same user can take multiple surveys.
Customer Table with CustID as the primary key
Questions Table with a Question ID as the primary key. If a question cannot belong to more than one survey (a N:1 relationship), then can also have Survey ID (of table Survey table mentioned in point 3) as one of the values in the table.
But if a Survey to Question relationship is N:M, then
(SurveryID, QuestionID) would become a composite key for the SurveyTable, else it would just have the SurveyID with the high level details of the survey like description.
UserSurvey table which would contain (USerID, SurveryID, QuestionID, AnswerGiven)
[Note: if same user can take the same survey again and again, either the old survey has to be updated or the repeat attempts have to stored as another rows with some serial number)