I checked this question here but unfortunately the link to the diagram in not working so I'm stuck.
I am trying to have multiple emails for one user (work, business, personal, etc) and I'm not sure how to best approach this situation.
I am thinking to have 4 tables: user, email, email_type, and user_has_email (user N:M email).
I made two diagrams but I don't know which one would be the better one.
First diagram helps me if one user has the same email for both work and personal (because I don't have to store it twice). Second option is good as well but I would have to store emails twice or more even if one user uses the same email for work, business, personal, etc.
I am planning to use the same idea for storing addresses, which occupy more space than emails and I am thinking that the diagram 1 is more suitable for this.
What do you think?
Diagram 1
-explanation of user_has_email: I chose to make the email_type PK because there may be the case when a user has the same email for work or personal. If I don't PK the email_type I would only be able to have one email_type per user. Did I complicated it too much?
Diagram 2
Instead I would use
user (user_id, first_name, last_name)
user_emails (user_id, email_type_id, email)
email_types (email_type_id, email_type)
I would prefer Diagram 1 for the following reasons.
You can make the email field UNIQUE so that you can store it only once regardless of the type.
It does not seem right to make the email and the email type tightly coupled, if you face a situation where you have to establish a one-to-one relationship between the user and the email for some other feature.
Any kind of validation for the user-email relationship should be handled in the business logic (even if you have constraints in the database).
The following structure should fit the bill:
There is a 1:N relationship between users and e-mails, and each user's e-mail can have zero or more types, from the set of shared types.
If the e-mail types don't need to be shared among users, the model can be further simplified:
BTW, the case for using M:N for addresses is not clear either, due to the inherent "fuzziness" of addresses - see this post for some musings on the subject.
Related
I know that there is not a "good" answer to my question, and it is opinion based. But since I am now learning those things on my own, I need advice.
I have a table on Mysql about "Customer". In this table there are columns referred to customer's info like name, surname, date of birth, address, and so on.
Each customer has his own credentials (username, password).
Now my question is: It is better to keep credentials in "customer" table, or it has sense to create a separate table, in order to guarantee the protection of these credentials, and also keep track of the changes of them along time, without wasting space repeating all the others customers' info?
You need to answer some questions about your data:
Do the columns change? People change names, addresses, and so on.
The credentials will change, at least the password.
What sort of history do you need?
My recommendation would be different sets of tables for different purposes:
One table that defines the customer id and whatever other immutable information there is (perhaps the date of becoming a customer and related information).
One or more tables with PII (personally identifiable information). You want to keep PII separate for regulatory and privacy reasons.
Tables for history. How you do this depends on your data model and what you need. A simple method is a single archive table per table in your data model. However, I might recommend type-2 tables (i.e. those having version effective and end dates).
Separate tables for credentials. These are even more sensitive than PII and you will want to control access.
Remember to never store clear-text passwords. And often you want to keep a history of passwords to prevent users from using the previous one.
It is better to create personal information in the person table and additional customer information in another table that has a relationship with the customer, and if you have any other information about the person in another table and link it to the table of persons.
I'm creating a messaging system for a e-learning platform and there are some design concerns that I'd like some feedback on.
First of all, it is important for me and my system to be highly modifiable in the future. As such, maintaining a fairly high normalization across my tables is important.
On to how my system will work:
All members (students or teachers) are part of a virtual classroom.
Teachers can create tasks and exercises in these classrooms and assign them to one or multiple students (member_task table not illustrated).
A student can request help for a specific task or exercise by sending a message to the teachers of the classroom.
Messages sent by students are sent to all the teachers. They cannot address a message to a specific teacher.
Messages sent by teachers can be addressed to one or more students.
Students cannot send messages to other students.
Messages behave like chat, meaning that a private conversation starts between a student and all teachers when they send a message.
Here's the ER diagram I made:
So my question is, is this table normalized properly for my purpose? Is there anything that can be done to reduce redundancy of data across my tables? And out of curiosity, is it in BCNF?
Another question: I don't intend to ever implement delete features anywhere in my system. Only "archiving" where said classroom/task/member/message/whatever is simply hidden/deactivated. So is there any reason to actually use FK?
EDIT: Also, a friend brought to my attention that the Conversations table might be redundant, and it kinda feels so. Thoughts?
Thanks.
In response to your emphasis on "modifiability" which I'm taking to mean with respect to application and schema evolution I'm actually going to suggest a fairly extreme solution. Before that some notes some aspects you've mentioned. First, foreign keys represent meaningful constraints in your data. They should always be defined and enforced. Foreign keys are not there just for cascading delete. Second, the Conversations table is arguably redundant. It would make sense if you had a notion of "session" of chat which would correspond to a Conversation. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of messages throughout time. The Conversation table could also enable a many-to-many relation between messages and tasks/exercises if you wanted to have chats that simultaneously covered multiple exercises, for example.
Now for the extreme suggestion. You could use 6NF. In particular, you might look at its incarnation in anchor modeling. The most notable difference in this approach is each attribute is modeled as a different table. 6NF supports temporal databases (supported in anchor modeling via "historized" attributes/ties). This means handling situations like a student being associated to a task now but not later won't cause all their messages to disappear. Most relevant to you, all schema modifications are non-destructive and additive, so no old code breaks when you make a change.
There are downsides. First, it's a bit weird, and in particular anchor modeling (somewhat gratuitously?) introduces a bunch of new terms. Second, it produces weird queries for most relational databases which they may not optimize well. This can sometimes be resolved with materialized views. Third, at the physical level, every attribute is effectively nullable. Finally, the tooling and support, while present, is pretty young. In particular, for MySQL, you may only be "inspired by" what's provided on the anchor modeling site.
As far as the actual database model would go, it would look roughly similar. Anchor modeling uses the term "anchor" for roughly the same thing as an entity, and "tie" for roughly the same thing as a relation. For simplicity, dropping the Conversation relation (and thus directly connecting Message to Task), the image would be similar: you'd have an anchor for Classroom, Member, Message, and Task, and a tie replacing Recipient that you might called ReceivedMessage representing the relation of "member received message message". The attributes on your entities would be attribute nodes. Making the message attribute on the Message anchor historized would allow messages to be edited if desired and support a history of revisions.
One concern I have is that I don't see a Users table which will hold all the students and teachers info (login, email, system id, role, etc) but I assume there is something similar in our system?
Now, looking into the Members table: usually students change classes every semester or so and you don't want last semesters' students to receive new messages. I would suggest the following:
Members
=============
PK member_id
FK class_id
FK user_id
--------------
join_date
leave_date
active
role
The last two fields might be redundant:
active: is an alternative solution if you want to avoid using dates. This will become false when a user stops being member of this class. Since there is not delete feature, the Members entry has to be preserved for archive purposes (and historical log).
role: Depends on how you setup Users table and roles in your system. If a user entry has role field(s) then this is not needed. However, this field allows for the same user to assume different roles in different classes. Example: a 3rd year student, who was a member of this class 2 years ago, is now working as TA/LA (teaching/lab assistant) for the same class. This depends on how the institution works... in my BSc we had the "rule": anyone with grade > 8.5/10 in Java could volunteer to do workshops to other students (using uni's labs). Finally, this field if used as a mask or a constant, allows for roles to be extended (future-proof)
As for FKs I will always suggest using them for data consistency. Things can get really ugly really fast without FKs. The limitations they impose can be worked around and they are usually needed: What is the purpose of archiving a message with sender_id if the sender has been deleted by accident? Also, note that in most systems FKs are indexed which improves the performance of queries/joins.
Hope the above helps and not confuse things :)
I'm setting up a database to run practice management software for lawsuits. When adding people associated with the suit, some of them will be repeat parties (eg lawyers for the firm) and some will be one-off parties (witnesses, etc). Looking for input on whether to make 1 "case users" table with values for a user id as well as the rest of the info for the one-off parties, or make 2 tables, one being "case users-firm" with 2 columns for the case and the user id, and another "case users-other" with the one-off party information.
It's pretty common to have a "Persons" table, filled with things common to all people like first name, last name, and a primary key. Then store that key everywhere you might want a person. Who knows? Your lawyer might be a witness. No need to duplicate the entry, when they are in fact the same person.
I don't see why you would want to have two tables, especially if they are going to have mostly the same fields. On the other hand, if you want to keep a lot more info for the attorneys than for the witnesses (or the other way around) two tables could be beneficial...
Just one other point to add. For privacy and data protection it is best not to store, encourage your users to store, or even set up a framework for storing, any more personal data than you actually need for your purposes. ( In the UK, think 'Data Protection' law ). So unless you are planning on evolving a kind of legal-profession facebook, I would keep the tables separate on this occasion.
I've been thinking about this all evening (GMT) but I can't seem to figure out a good solution for this one. Here's the case...
I have to create a signup system which distinguishes 4 kinds of "users":
Individual sign ups (require address info)
Group sign ups (don't require address info)
Group contact (require address info)
Application users (don't require address info)
I really cannot come up with a decent way of modeling this into something that makes sense. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could share your ideas.
Thanks in advance!
Sounds like good case for single table inheritance
Requiring certain data is more a function of your application logic than your database. You can definitely define database columns that don't allow NULL values, but they can be set to "" (empty string) without any errors.
As far as how to structure your database, have two separate tables:
User
UserAddress
When you have a new signup that requires contact info, your application will create records in both tables. When a new signup doesn't require address info, your application will only create a record in the User table.
There are a couple considerations here: first, I like to look at User/Group as a case of a Composite pattern. It clearly meets the requirement: you often have to treat the aggregate and individual versions of the entity interchangeably (as you note). Implementing a composite in a database is not that hard. If you are using an ORM, it is pretty simple (inheritance).
On the other part of the question, you always have the ability to create data structures that are mostly empty. Generally, that's a bad idea. So you can say 'well, in the beginning, we don't have any information about the User so we will just leave all the other fields blank.' A better approach is to try and model the phases as if they were part of an FSM. One of the clearest ways to do this in this particular case is to distinguish between Users, Accounts and some other more domain-specific entity, e.g. Subscriber or Customer. Then, I can come and browse using User, sign up and make an Account, then later when you want address and other personal information, become a subscriber. This would also imply inheritance, and you have the added benefit of being able to have a true representation of the population at any time that doesn't require stupid shenanigans like 'SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE _ not null,' etc.
Here's a suggestion from my end after weighing pro's and con's on this model. As I think the ideal setup is to have all users be a user entity that belong to a group without differentiating groups from individuals (except of course flag a group contact person and creating a link with a groups table) we came up with the alternative to copy the group contact user details to the group members when they group is created.
This way all entities that actually are a person will get their own table.
Could this be a good idea? Awaiting your comments :)
I've decided to go with a construction where group members are separated from the user pool anyway. The group members eventually have no relation with a user since they don't require access to mutating their personal data, that's what a group contact person is for. Eventually I could add a possibility for groups to have multiple contact persons, even distinguishing persons that are or are not allowed to edit any member data.
That's my answer on this one.
I am doing the design of a database, that will have eventually thousands of users. Each user has your profile and specific data associated.
In your opinion, it is best practice a table for id, username, activationLink and hash and another for address, age, photo, job, or it is best a unique table for all stuff?
thanks for your time
If:
All (or almost all) users have all data filled
Most of the time you query for all fields
then keep them in a single table, otherwies split them.
In your model, activationLink seems to be queried for only once per activation, so I'd move it into a separate table (which would allow deleting it after the account had been activated).
Address, age, photo and job are usually shown along with the username, so it would be better to merge them into a single table.
Don't allow your initial design to limit the ability (or just make it difficult) to expand your requirements in the future.
At the moment, a user may have one address so you might put it in the users table - what if you want them to be able to store "work" and "home" addresses in future, or a history of past addresses?
A user may only be allowed to have a single photo, but if you put it (or a URL for it) in users.photo, then you'd have to change your data structure to allow a user to have a history of profile photos
As Quassnoi mentions, there are performance implications for each of these decisions - more tables means more complexity, and more potential for slow queries. Don't create new tables for the sake of it, but consider your data model carefully as it quickly becomes very hard to change it.
Any values that are a strict 1-to-1 relationship with a user entity, and are unlikely to ever change and require a history for (date of birth is a good example) should go in the table with the core definition. Any potential 1-to-many relationships (even if they aren't right now) are good candidates for their own tables.