Multiple Voting Table Schema:
Single Voting Table Schema:
Businesses, Products, and Comments can all be voted on. For the first obvious solution, I chose to create an association entity for each of the relationships. We thought maybe there would be a better solution, though.
After extensive research and looking around for a solution, I found the concept of the second schema, which is to have a single voting table with a column (Entity) to define the type of the table or the table in which the ID (EntityID being the ID of the Table it Came From) belongs to. The only problem is that there is no relationship between the voting table and the three entities. Is there a way for the Entity Column to refer to the table rather than the table's ID?
Any suggestions of other constructive ways of developing the schema are welcome.
I think you will find this answer very sufficient.
Why can you not have a foreign key in a polymorphic association?
What you're looking at here is a Polymorphic Association. It has many solutions, of which three are described thoroughly through the given post.
I would suggest you combine the Business, Product and Comment tables into a single table, with an additional colume to denote 'Type'. Then you can enforce your relationship to the Vote table.
Related
I was studying about relationships in RDBMS.I have understood the basic concept behind mapping relation ship,but I am not able to spot them.
The three possibilities :
one to many(Most common) requires a PK - FK relationsip.Two tables involved
many to many(less common) requires a junction table.Three tables Involved
one to one(very rare). One table involved.
When I begin a project,I am not able to separate the first two conditions and I am not clear in my head.
Examples when I study help for a brief moment,but not when I need to put these principles in to practice.
This is the place where most begineers falter.
How can I spot these relationships.Is there a simpler way?
Don't look at relationships from a technical perspective. Use analogies and real-life examples when trying to envision relationships in your head.
For example, let's say we have a library database.
A library must have books.
M:M
Each Book may have been written by multiple Authors and each Author may have written multiple Books. Thus it is a many-to-many relationship which will reflect into 3 tables in the database.
1:M
Each Book must also have a Publisher, but a Book may only have one Publisher and a Publisher can publish many Books. Thus it is a one-to-many relationship and it reflects with the PublisherId being referenced in the Books table.
A simple analogy like this one explains relationships to their core. When you try to look at them through a technical lens you're only making it harder on yourself. What's actually difficult is applying real world data scenarios when constructing your database.
I think the reason you are not getting the answers that you need is because of the way you are framing the question. Instead of asking “How do I spot the correct type of relationship between entities”, think about “How do my functional needs dictate what relationship to implement”. Database design doesn’t drive the function; it’s the functional needs that drive the relationships you need to implement.
When designing a database structure, you need to identify all the entities. Entities are all the facts that you want to store: lists of things like book titles, invoices, countries, dog species, etc. Then to identify your relationships, you have to consider the types of questions you will want to ask your database. It takes a bit of forward thinking sometimes… just because nobody is asking the question now doesn’t mean that it might not ever be asked. So you can’t ask the universe “what is the relationship between these lists of facts?” because there is no definitive answer. You define the universe… I only want to know answers to these types of questions; therefore I need to use this type of relationship.
Let’s examine an example relation between two common entities: a table of customers and a table of store locations. There is no “correct” way to relate these entities without first defining what you need to know about them. Let’s say you work for a retailer and you want to give a customer a default store designation so they can see products on the website that their local store has in stock. This only requires a one-to-many relationship between a store and the customer. Designing the relationship this way ensures that one store can have many customers as their default and each customer can only have one default store. To implement this relationship is as easy as adding a DefaultStore field to your Customer table as a foreign key that links to the primary key of the Store table.
The same two entities above might have alternate requirements for the relationship definition in a different context. Let’s say that I need to be able to give the customer the opportunity to select a list of favorite stores so that they can query about in stock information about all of them at once. This requires a many-to-many relationship because you want one customer to be able to relate to many stores and each store can also relate to many customers. To implement a many-to-many relationship requires a little more overhead because you will have to create a separate table to define the relationship links, but you get this additional functionality. You might call your relationship table something like CustomerStoreFavorites and would have as its primary key as the combined primary keys from each of the entities: (CustomerID, StoreID). You could also add attributes to the relationship, like possibly a LastOrderDate field to specify the last date that the customer ordered something from a particular store.
You could technically define both types of relationships for the same two entities. As an example: maybe you need to give the customer the option to select a default store, but you also need to be able to record the last date that a customer ordered something from a particular store. You could implement the DefaultStore field on the Customer table with the foreign key to the Store table and also create a relationship table to track all the stores that a customer has ordered from.
If you had some weird situation where every customer had their own store, then you wouldn’t even need to create two tables for your entities because you can fit all the attributes for both the customer and the store into one table.
In short, the way you determine which type of relationship to implement is to ask yourself what questions you will need to ask the database. The way you design it will restrict the relational data you can collect as well as the queries you can ask. If I design a one-to-many relationship from the store to the customer, I won’t be able to ask questions about all the stores that each customer has ordered from unless I can get to that information though other relationships. For example, I could create an entity called "purchases" which has a one-to-many relationship to the customer and store. If each purchase is defined to relate to one customer and one store, now I can query “what stores has this customer ordered from?” In fact with this structure I am able to capture and report on a much richer source of information about all of the customer's purchases at any store. So you also need to consider the context of all the other relationships in your database to decide which relationship to implement between two particular entities.
There is no magic formula, so it just takes practice, experience, and a little creativity. ER Diagrams are a great way to get your design out of your head and onto paper so that you can analyze your design and ensure that you can get the right types of questions answered. There are also a lot of books and resources to learn about database architecture. One good book I learned a lot from was “Database System Concepts” by Abraham Silberschatz and Henry Korth.
Say you have two tables A and B. Consider an entry from A and think of how many entries from B it could possibly be related with at most: only one, or more? Then consider an entry from B and think of how many entries in A it could be related with.
Some examples:
Table A: Mothers, Table B: Children. Each child has only one mother but a mother may have one or more children. Mothers and Children have a one-to-many relationship.
Table A: Doctors, Table B: Patients. Each patient may be visiting one or more doctors and each doctor treats one or more patients. So they have a many-to-many relationship.
An example of one to one:
LicencePlate to Vehicle. One licence plate belongs to one vehicle and one vehicle has one licence plate.
I am creating a DB for my project and I am facing a doubt regarding best practice.
My concrete case is:
I have a table that stores the floors of a building called "floor"
I have a second table that stores the buildings called "building"
I have a third table that stores the relationship between them, called building_x_floor
The problem is this 3rd table.
What should I do?
Have only two columns, one holding a FK to the PK of building and another holding an FK to the PK of floor;
Have the two columns above and a third column with a PK and control consistency with trigger, forbidding to insert a replicated touple of (idbuilding, idfloor)?
My first thought was to use the first option, but I googling around and talking I heard that it is not always the best option.
So I am asking for guidance.
I am Using MySQL 5.6.17
You don't need third table. Because there is one-to-many relationship between building and floor.
So one building has many floors and a floor belongs to one building. Don't get things complicated. Even though you need a table with composite keys, you should be careful. You need to override equals and hashCode methods.
I am still not confortable with that approach. I am not saying it is wrong or innapropriate, very far from that. I am trying to understand how the informations would be organized and how performatic it would be.
If I have a 1:* relationship, like a student may be attending to more than one subject along its university course within a semester I would Have the 3rd table with (semester, idstudent, iddiscipline).
If I try to get rid of the join table my relationship would be made with a FK inside student table or inside subject table. And it does not make sense to do that because student table is a table for a set of information related with registering the info of a person while the discipline table holds the data of a discipline, like content, hours...it is more a parametric table.
So I would need a table for the join.
I have three tables: Resumes, Orgs, and Resume2Org. Basically, Resume2Org is my many-to-many relationship table linking Resumes.resume_id to Orgs.org_id (so it only has those two keys in that table).
My question is, is it okay to use that many-to-many relationship table to store other data? My use case: the database is part of a system to sift through incoming resumes. But I've been asked to implement a "marked as read" feature so we can easily get the list of resumes we haven't looked at yet. But since a resume can belong to many different orgs, we only want to mark a resume as read for the org the user/viewer belongs to. I thought, hey, having that flag in Resume2Org would be perfect. Is this a smart approach, or should I create a new table specifically for "marked as read"? All the examples I've seen about many-to-many relationship tables is that those tables are used just for that... linking two tables.
Yes it is okey to have additional fields in a many-to-many table. I think it is the right way to do in your case as you don't need to join additional tables and you save spaces.
I was in a very similar situation last week and I added additional field for that.
I have the following tables created:
Animes(id,title,date), Comics(id,title,date), TVSeries(id,title,season,episode,date)
Some of them have already foreign keys (for one-to-many or many-to-many relations) of directors, genres, articles and so on.
Now i would like to create two more tables Reviews(id,rating,date) and Posts(id,thumbid,articleid,reviewid).
A review is about one Anime and/or Comic TVSerie and vise-versa but properties of a review may be in more than one table. Its the same about a posts.
Is this a typical example of one-to-one relation in separate table or is it more efficient to add more properties to the existing tables?
So more tables and relations or less tables more columns?
Thank you and i hope my question isnt that stupid but im a bit confused.
In my view, It is better to avoid foreign key relationship for one-to-one relationship. It is best suitable for one - many relationships.
I'm not exactly sure what your requirements are, but the choices are as follows:
Have Reviews have 2 columns, either being a foreign key to the applicable table, can be NULL. This is really for when a single review can be about both.
Have a ReviewsComics and ReviewsAnime table. You'd then have all the fields from Reviews in each table (and no Reviews table).
An alternative (2) is to use them in conjunction with a Reviews table, then those 2 tables only has 2 fields which are foreign keys to Reviews and Comics/Anime respectively (thus no direct link between Reviews and Comics/Anime).
Have a base table to which Anime and Comics are linked to 1-to-1 and have reviews link to that table instead.
(Edit) If all the fields are all going to be the same (or similar) for Anime/Comics, you can merge them into a single table and add a type field, indicating Anime/Comics, then the problem goes away. This is similar to the base table option.
EDIT: The 2 reviews tables will probably give the best performance (unless you want to select all reviews for either, often), but with proper indices the performance shouldn't be an issue with any of the above.
I have a table called 'notes', on this table I need to track who made that note, but the problem is that the creator of the note can be a user stored in one of three possible tables:
users
leads
managers
I have though of simply create three fields on 'notes' to represent the three possible relations: note.user, note.lead, note.manager
With this approach I would be forced to create three table joins when requesting the notes to gather the creators information, and I don't think that is the way to go, so I would like to hear your ideas or comments and what would be the best approach on this.
For me personally this smells like a design problem on a totally different part of the schema: Are manageers not users? Do leads carry person information?
With any approach that creates a relation between one column and one of three others, you will need three joins for the select. If you can't rectify the underlying problem, I recommend you use
note_type ENUM('users','leads','managers')
as an additional field and
SELECT
...
IFNULL(users.name(IFNULL(managers.name,leads.name))) AS name
..
FROM notes
LEFT JOIN users ON notes.note_type='users' AND users.id=notes.note_source
LEFT JOIN managers ON notes.note_type='managers' AND managers.id=notes.note_source
LEFT JOIN leads ON notes.note_type='leads' AND leads.id=notes.note_source
...
for the query
I think you need to abstract out the concept of a user id, so that it does not depend on their role. The author of a note could then be specified by the user id.
Users could be assigned roles, and maybe more than one.
The correct way to structure this would be to pull all common data out of users, leads, and managers. Unify this data into a "contact" table. Then if you want to get all notes for a given manager:
managers->contacts->notes
for a lead:
leads->contacts->notes
Notice your original post: "the problem is that the creator of the note can be a user stored in one of three possible tables"
From the structure of your sentence you even admit that all these entities have something in common; they are all users. Why not make the DB reflect this?
you have to model a parent table for the three tables you already have. Define a table that depicts generally user, leads and manager tables. Something like "Person". So you have all of the ids of the three tables and any common attributes on the Person table. And when you must define the relationship you put the foreign id "Person_ID" on the note table. And when you model user, leads and manager tables you also put the primary key as a foreign key to the Person table.
So you would have something like this:
Table users:
Users(
person_id primary key
...(attributes of Users)
foreign key person_id references Person.person_id
)
This model i depict is common to any relational model you have to model using parents and childs