Wordpress Database stucture - mysql

I want to make a ajax post filter. Filtering on wordpress post meta (custom-fields).
My posts have post-meta like actors, genre, duration, ect..
If I make a script using the meta-data from wordpress I expect performance issues. Therefore I want to build a custom database-table containing the post-id, and then a copy of the post-meta.
My structure would be something like this:
post-id
actors
genre
duration
Is this the most efficient way, or should I make separated tables for every post-meta?
Like this:
table 1:
post-id
actors
table 2:
post-id
genre
table 3
post-id
duration
It needs to be optimized for both a large database, and high volume traffic.
I am a bit new to database structure design, I was reading about indexes too, is there a task for them?
Should the values of actors be: Brad Pitt or a integer: 232 related to his name?
Also I am open to better ideas, than the ones above.

Wordpress looks terribly designed, but it does the job and do it well. Strangely it's much more efficient that what we can think by studying at its design.
If you want to use another table you will have to sync its content with the wp database on post updates. May not be easy.
I would take this problem in either one of this directions :
1 do it wp style and optimise
Do your database with custom post type. Create a page called ajax-actors in admin, create a page-ajax-actor.php file that handle the query and send raw results (no header, no footer).
Call www.yoursite.com/ajax-actor with ajax.
This will be "slow", so you have to optimize it.
Make sure you have apc running with enougth ram allocated to it.
Use wordpress supercache or similar plugin / Use a reverse proxy
2 do it using lightweight database
Use wordpress for your editorial content and create a second lightweight database from scratch. This way you can optimize your database for its specific content.
If you are starting a new website, do it using the 1st solution. It will be faster and you'll get your site online sooner. Then you can use the revenue to optimize it or even do a complete reshape.
Should the values of actors be: Brad Pitt or a integer: 232 related to his name?
You should use one table per entity type. Primary key must be an integer. Then you reference this primary key from other tables.
Example :
Table actors
id : integer / primary key
name : varchar / with index
The index on name slows insert but will speedup dramaticaly the search using actor names.
In the movies table you reference the actors by id. Actually, since they are several actors per movie, you'll need a table like this :
Actors_Movie
actor_id : integer
movie_id : integer
role : varchar (what's the name of the character of this actor in this movie)
hope this helps.

Related

Performance of modelling inheritance in database using superclass table

My Question, is actually a question about the usability / performance of a concept / idea I had:
The Setup:
Troughout my Database, two (actually three) fields always re-appear constantly: title and description (and created). The title is always a VARCHAR(100) and the description always a TEXT.
Now, to simplify those tables, I thought about something (and changed it in that way): Wouldnt it be more useful to just create a table named content, with id, title, description and created as only fields, and always point to that table from all others?
Example:
table tab has id, key and content_id (instead of title, description and created)
table chapter has id, story_id and content_id (" ")
etc
The Question:
Everything works fine so far, but my only fear is performance. Will I run into a bottleneck, doing it this way, or should I be fine? I have about 23 different tables pointing to content right now, and some of them will hold user-defined content (journals, comments, etc) - so the number of entries in content could get quite high.
Is this setup better, or equal to having title and description in every separate table?
Edit: And if it turns out to be a bad idea, what are alternatives to mantain/copying certain fields like title and description into ~25 tables?
Thanks in advance for the help!
There is no clear answer for your question because it mainly depends on usage of the tables, so just consider following points:
How often will you need write to the tables? In case of many inserts/updates having data in one big table can cause problems because all write operations will target the same table.
How often do you need data stored in table with common data? If title or description are not needed most of the time for your select this can be OK. If you need title every time then take into account that you wile always have to JOIN table with common data.
How do you manage your database schema? It can be easier to write some simple tool for creation/checking table structure. In MySQL you can easily access data dictionary with DESCRIBE table_name or through INFORMATION_SCHEMA database.
I'm working on project with 700+ tables where some of the fields have to be present in every table (when was record created, timestamp of last modification). We have simple script that helps with this, because having all data in one table would be disastrous.

Mysql Database Layout

I have created the following database layout, and started coding the application. The more I read, the more I realize my database layout is probably incorrect / inefficient / a bad idea. Before I develop too much code using this layout, I want to make sure I am doing it "correctly".
Basically I have a list of ~2000 stores, and a list of ~50 promotional codes. I need to store whether or not each code is valid at each store. Right now I chose to store each store number as a column header, with the first column containing all of the different possible codes. Here's an image of part of the table so far (1 represents the code being valid, 0 invalid at that store).
The promotional codes will change relatively frequently, but the store numbers should be relatively static, and not change very much.
This is my first time creating a database from scratch like this, and I am a beginner at using mysql, so any help is much appreciated!
You should better use a table for your stores. If you don't, when one store will be added you'll spend a lot of time to add a new field...
Here is what I would do:
table store will contains your 2000s stores
id
name
table code will contains your 50 codes
id
name
table code_store will contains only the valid codes ID, and related store_id(no need to save invalid ones I guess)
code_id
store_id
This type of relation is called many-to-many. I typically have three table for this type of situation. One table for the stores, one for the promo codes, and a third relational table that would have two columns: the store id and the promo id.

MySQL 5.5 Database design. Problem with friendly URLs approach

I have a maybe stupid question but I need to ask it :-)
My Friendly URL (furl) database design approach is fairly summarized in the following diagram (InnoDB at MySQL 5.5 used)
Each item will generate as many furls as languages available on the website. The furl_redirect table represents the controller path for each item. I show you an example:
item.id = 1000
item.title = 'Example title'
furl_redirect = 'item/1000'
furl.url = 'en/example-title-1000'
furl.url = 'es/example-title-1000'
furl.url = 'it/example-title-1000'
When you insert a new item, its furl_redirect and furls must be also inserted. The problem appears becouse of the (necessary) unique constraint in the furl table. As you see above, in order to get unique urls, I use the title of the item (it is not necessarily unique) + the id to create the unique url. That means the order of inserting rows should be as follow:
1. Insert item -- (and get the id of the new item inserted) ERROR!! furl_redirect_id must not be null!!
2. Insert furl_redirect -- (need the item id to create de path)
3. Insert furl -- (need the item id to create de url)
I would like an elegant solution to this problem, but I can not get it!
Is there a way of getting the next AutoIncrement value on an InnoDB Table?, and is it recommended to use it?
Can you think of another way to ensure the uniqueness of the friendly urls that is independent of the items' id? Am I missing something crucial?
Any solution is welcome!
Thanks!
You can get an auto-increment in InnoDB, see here. Whether you should use it or not depends on what kind of throughput you need and can achieve. Any auto-increment/identity type column, when used as a primary key, can create a "hot spot" which can limit performance.
Another option would be to use an alphanumeric ID, like bit.ly or other URL shorteners. The advantage of these is that you can have short IDs that use base 36 (a-z+0-9) instead of base 10. Why is this important? Because you can use a random number generator to pick a number out of a fairly big domain - 6 characters gets you 2 billion combinations. You convert the number to base 36, and then check to see if you already have this number assigned. If not, you have your new ID and off you go, otherwise generate a new random number. This helps to avoid hotspots if that turns out to be necessary for your system. Auto-increment is easier and I'd try that first to see if it works under the loads that you're anticipating.
You could also use the base 36 ID and the auto-increment together so that your friendly URLs are shorter, which is often the point.
You might consider another ways to deal with your project.
At first, you are using "en/" "de/" etc, for changing language. May I ask how does it work in script? If you have different folders for different languages your script and users must suffer a lot. Try to use gettext or any other localisation method (depends on size of your project).
About the friendly url's. My favorite method is to have only one extra column in item's table. For example:
Table picture
id, path, title, alias, created
Values:
1, uploads/pics/mypicture.jpg, Great holidays, great-holidays, 2011-11-11 11:11:11
2, uploads/pics/anotherpic.jpg, Great holidays, great-holidays-1, 2011-12-12 12:12:12
Now in the script, while inserting the item, create alias from title, check if the alias exists already and if does, you can add id, random number, or count (depending on how many same titles u have already).
After you store the alais like this its very simple. User try to access
http://www.mywebsite.com/picture/great-holidays
So in your script you just see that user want to see picture, and picture with alias great-holidays. Find it in DB and show it.

Is it good practice to consolidate small static tables in a database?

I am developing a database to store test data. Each piece of data has 11 tags of metadata. Currently I have a separate table for each of the metadata options. I have seen a few questions on here regarding best practices for numerous small tables, but I thought I'd pose the question for my own project because I didn't get a clear answer from the other questions asked.
Here is my table list, with the fields in each table:
Source Type - id, name, description
For Flight - id, name, description
Site - id, name, abrv, description
Stand - id, site (FK site table), name, abrv, descrition
Sensor Type - id, name, channels, descrition
Vehicle - id, name, abrv, descrition
Zone - id, vehicle (FK vehicle table), name, abrv, description
Event Type - id, name, description
Event - id, event type (FK to event type Table), name, descrition
Analysis - id, name, descrition
Bandwidth - id, name, descrition
You can see the fields are more or less the same in each of these tables. There are three tables that reference another table.
Would it be better to have just one large table called something like Meta with the following fields:
Meta: id, metavalue, name, abrv, FK, value, descrition
where metavalue = one of the above table names
and FK = a reference to another row in the Meta table in place of a foreign key?
I am new to databases and multiple tables seems most intuitive, but one table makes the programming easier.
So questions are:
Is it good practice to reduce the number of tables and put all static values in one table.
Is it bad to have a self referencing table.
FYI I am making this web database using django and mysql on a windows server with NTFS formatting.
Tips and best practices appreciate.
thanks.
"Would it be better to have just one large table" - emphatically and categorically, NO!
This anti-pattern is sometimes referred to as 'The one table to rule them all"!
Ten Common Database Design Mistakes: One table to hold all domain values.
Using the data in a query is much easier
Data can be validated using foreign key constraints very naturally,
something not feasible for the other
solution unless you implement ranges
of keys for every table – a terrible
mess to maintain.
If it turns out that you need to keep more information about a
ShipViaCarrier than just the code,
'UPS', and description, 'United Parcel
Service', then it is as simple as
adding a column or two. You could even
expand the table to be a full blown
representation of the businesses that
are carriers for the item.
All of the smaller domain tables will fit on a single page of disk.
This ensures a single read (and likely
a single page in cache). If the other
case, you might have your domain table
spread across many pages, unless you
cluster on the referring table name,
which then could cause it to be more
costly to use a non-clustered index if
you have many values.
You can still have one editor for all rows, as most domain tables will
likely have the same base
structure/usage. And while you would
lose the ability to query all domain
values in one query easily, why would
you want to? (A union query could
easily be created of the tables easily
if needed, but this would seem an
unlikely need.)
Most of these look like they won't do anything but expand codes into descriptions. Do you even need the tables? Just define a bunch of constants, or codes, and then have a dictionary of long descriptions for the codes.
The field in the referring table just stores the code. eg: "SRC_FOO", "EVT_BANG" etc.
This is also often known as the One True Lookup Table (OTLT) - see my old blog entry OTLT and EAV: the two big design mistakes all beginners make.

Choose a database table to join with, using a field value

The website I'm building has a table which stores all the information of uploaded images on the site. These uploaded images can come from different resources such as a guestbook, news section or an item from an agenda.
Ofcourse I want the image to inherit the rights of the resource it is part of. For example: if user A isn't allowed to view the guestbook I don't want him to be able to view an image posted on the guestbook by going to image/view/id/12 (which would be the image request used it in the guestbook).
What I have now is that the system remembers the resources used (in this case the guestbook) the image-id is coupled to the resource-id. However I don't know to which guestbook post the image is connected (I do ofcourse know it the other way around).
Is there a way in SQL to connect one table field to a field in another table, where which table I connect to can vary based on one of the first table's field values?
In my case I would like to connect an image to a resource this could be a guestbook post in the table gb_posts or an agenda item in the table agenda_items.
Or is this all a stupid way of solving the problem and should I not use one table for the uploaded images but keep the image attached to the resource (as a column in the table for example)? It sounds like using one table is at least a lot slower in use (but I would have a great overview of all the images in one place).
I hope you guys can help me out.
EDIT: extra explanation: db model
I will try to explain how it all works the best I can.
First of all: I use Zend Framework, and therefor I also use Zend_Acl for working with priveleges.
My DB structure:
- Users are connected to roles (directly or by being connected to a group that is connected to a role)
- There is a table resources containing all the resources which is connected to priveleges. For example: guestbook is a resource, view or edit are the priveleges. Next to the controllers/actions there can also be other resources in this table such as a category within the agenda or a file location.
- roles are connected to a privelege
When for example the guestbook is requested for viewing I can check if the user is allowed to.
In short something like:
users -> roles -> priveleges <- resources
When a user adds a guestbook post with an image, the used resources (in this case guestbook is saved):
guestbook_posts -> images -> resources
I hope this explains my DB model for a bit, if it doesn't I will try to create an image of the tables.
I have to admit I'm failing to completely understand the model you wish to implement, but there is an interesting quote...
However I don't know to which
guestbook post the image is connected
(I do ofcourse know it the other way
around).
If you know an association one way, you should be able to use the associaton in both directions? I'm assuming you have a table that includes "post_id, image_id", or something?
It may be that the table is only indexed post_id first, in which case querying that table by image_id may be slow, but then you can just include a new index with image_id first?
If you can give examples of the table structure you have at present, and an example of the query you can't fullfil, we may be able to help you further.
Sounds like you want a foreign key constraint.
Update: Completely misunderstood the question, apparently.
There are two approaches here:
As it currently stands, there is nothing in the schema that would prohibit linking the same image from multiple resources. If that is desired, then a foreign key constraint and an index for the backreference is probably the best solution, although it will not scale well, and requires additional computation (because the rights on the image need to be the union of the rights of the refering resources).
The alternative is to create some kind of inheritance schema, where there is a table listing "resources" (that effectively just contains identifiers) that is referenced as a foreign key from the actual resource tables and the images table; the only constraint that cannot be expressed in plain SQL is that different resources may not share the same identifier.
Create two SELECT clauses, each having the correct joins to the correct tables, and then combine the output of the two SELECT clauses together using a UNION statement.
SELECT field1, field2
FROM table1
JOIN table2 on table1.PK = table2.FK
WHERE table1.selector = 1
UNION SELECT field1, field2
FROM table1
JOIN table3 on table1.PK = table3.FK
WHERE table1.selector = 2