I am designing a database in MySQL and need some guidance on how it should be structured and the relationships between tables. I have identified the following facts:
I have:
many users. (Fine)
One user has many organisations. (One - Many)
One organisation has many events. (One - Many)
One user has many addresses. (One - Many)
One organisation has many addresses (One - Many), but these addresses could be used by another organisation or event. Thus many organisations have many addresses. (Many - Many)
One event has one address. (One - One)
One organisation has one main address, but many organisations could be working from the same address, so (Many - One)
This is where I am stuck, because although an organisation or event has an address, they do not own it, the user does. So are these relationships necessary? Do I need to define foreign key relationships or can I get away without them? Do I need to maintain a separate table of default addresses because 2 organisations could use the same address but it not be the default address of one, so referencing it in the address table would be problematic (which one is actually the main address)?
Or am I looking at this in too complicated a way? Perhaps have the user maintain the addresses, then when they add an organisation, the organisation references that address but knows nothing of the other addresses (is that a one - one relationship for organisations or a many - one for addresses? Clearly removal of an organisation shouldn't mean the removal of an address and vice versa).
Then, when an event is added, it also just references an address, but can lookup the default address of the organisation to which it belongs. The same questions arise as above. The event is at that address but the address doesn't belong to the event or vice versa.
That almost simplifies it to:
One user, many events.
One user, many organisations.
One user, many addresses.
One organisation, one address.
One event, one address.
Is this the correct way to be looking at this problem? Are there any difficulties that could arise that I don't appear to have considered? Is there a better way to tackle this? The biggest problem I have is how to relate the tables to each other so I can set the relationships accordingly.
-- Edit: Added Info
Thinking about it further, more than one organisation might be having the same event. I would like to be able to link events also. These organisations could be added by separate users, but all need to be related. Is this something that MySQL can handle easily or should I be looking at other types of database logic such as graph databases?
It really depends on your use case. Sure, having a user or organization share an address (so, an addresses table) might seem technically correct, but it is probably adding unnecessary complexity. Think about how you're going to query your database (try to be forward thinking - what stuff might you want to do later?) and design your tables to support those queries.
You don't have to have foreign key constraints in your database. Actually, most databases I've looked at don't have them, the business logic handles checking the integrity of the records. I would suggest, again, that you be pragmatic about it and do what you are comfortable building and supporting.
Related
I have the following Entity Relation diagram (MySQL), which I made for a small project(for the university). I would like to know if the relation between PK and FK is properly made.
I am aware that token should not be used in the users table.
Don't know why my brain cannot comprehend the relationships properly. As far as I've managed to come up is:
Many users can have one role. (User, Admin, University)
One role can be belong to many users.
One user can have one event.
One event can belong to one user.
One user can have many attendings.
Many attendings can belong to one user.
Many events can have many attendings. (Although One event can have many attendings?)
Many attendings can belong to many events. (Although many attendings can belong to one event)
I did another diagram using Reverse Engineering from Workbench, and it gave me almost the same. The only difference is that between events and attenders is a one-to-many relationship.
Sometimes I look at them and I am not aware of which question is the best when 2 questions are possible. Is it one too many, or many too many.... This is a tricky question for my brain. It is like there is a missing link that I cannot grasp, and I am pretty sure it is not that hard.
And this is just a simple relationship, don't wanna know the smack my brain would give me if I were to make a 10-20 tables diagram ... Any other criticism is welcomed :) Thank you!
Many users can have one role. (User, Admin, University)
One role can be belong to many users.
One user can have one event.
One event can belong to one user.
One user can have many attendings.
Many attendings can belong to one user.
All of these statements are correct. From my understanding, you're having difficulty describing the relationship between users and events. Essentially what you have is a many-to-many relationship between users and events. In order for a many-to-many relationship to exist in standard relational systems, there must be a join table. The attenders_to table is serving the purpose of a join column in this relationship.
There also appears to be a separate relationship between events and users, in that each event has a direct column for a userId (I imagine this represents the person hosting/putting on the event). This can be seen as almost independent of the other relationship.
So in short, there are actually two relationships between Users and Events: A Many-to-Many relationship describing the people attending the event, as well as a One-to-Many (that is, one User to many Events) relationship describing the host of the event.
Let me know if this helps clear things up or if there's anything else that I'm missing!
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've been looking through different questions on here and I can't find something that exactly matches my situation.
I am designing a database for multiple types of users. I have one main User table which includes ID, Username, Password, PasswordSalt, AccountType (enum), and LastLoginDate. I need to have multiple types of accounts: Student, Parent, SchoolAdmin, SystemAdmin, Coordinator, and Teacher. I was originally thinking of having a separate table for each of these types of accounts, but I realized that SchoolAdmin, Coordinator, SystemAdmin, and Teacher all share the exact same data. These account types all have different permissions though. The Student and Parent accounts have extra information that they have to store.
I then thought about adding the information that the 4 identical tables share to the User table and then deleting those tables, but I came across another problem. I need to reference different types of accounts in other tables. For example, I had a foreign key for TeacherID in the Club table to show who the club sponsor is. If I add the information to the User table and get rid of those other tables, then how do I reference a specific account type in another table?
I have never designed a database like this so any help is appreciated.
There are three main ways of implementing inheritance on database models. Please check the links below, and study which is the best one to solve your problem. Nothing better to start analyzing this types of situations to become a good architect.
Single Table Inheritance
Class Table Inheritance
Concrete Table Inheritance
Each of the different approaches have their pros and cons so choose wisely.
I'm designing a database where two fields have a many-to-one relationship, but I also need a one-to-one relationship between them, and I would like some advice on whether there is a better way to do it than what I've got right now.
My tables are accounts and users. An account can have multiple users, but each account can only and must have one owner. A user can be related to only one account.
I have an account field in the users table, which stores the ID of the account the user is related to. In the accounts table, I have an owner field, which stores the ID of the user who owns the account (i.e. the head admin).
I'm using InnoDB so I can make use of foreign keys. The problem is that I can't create an account or a user without the other being created first (due to the restraints of the foreign keys), so I made owner nullable. Now I can create an account with a null owner, then create the user, and finally set the owner on the account to the user.
Is this acceptable, and is there a better way?
Here are some possible other ways I've come up with, and my thoughts on each:
Have a boolean owner field in the users table. Since every account can only have one owner, this way seems less than ideal because I'd have to ensure only one user per account has the attribute set to true.
Have a third table called owners. This seems like more overhead and more work for no good reason since it's effectively the same as having an owner field in the users table.
How I have it now makes the most sense to me, but it's a little awkward having to set a null owner until I create the user, and then coming back to set it after the fact.
I'd appreciate any input you can give me. Thanks!
This question is similar, but there's no mention of foreign keys: Designing Tables: One to many and one to one at same time?
In general is a bad idea if your schema cannot be sorted topologically, i.e. if you cannot establish an ordering where a table only refers to tables preceding it in the ordering. This sort of "layered" dependency is also a very nice property to have for example for software modules (you have a problem if two modules depends on each other).
In your case you have user that refers to account and account that refers to user so clearly there's no way to find a topological ordering.
One standard solution in this case is to introduce a separate table e.g. "role" where you have three columns: user, account and role. The column role can be either "owner" or "guest".
The fact that you know that (given the current requests) an account must have one and only one owner, or that a user must be listed in one and only one account are not IMO rules that are really pertinent to the domain of "users" and "accounts".
You can implement those rules easily, but structuring your data so that you have no other possibility is IMO a mistake. You should aim to model the domain, not the specific rules... because people will change their mind about what those rules are.
Can you conceive a user with two accounts? Can you conceive an account with multiple owners/admins? I can... and this means that most probably quite soon this will be a request. Structuring the data so that you cannot represent this is looking for troubles.
Also when you have cyclical dependencies in the model your queries will be harder to write.
A very common case is for example to try to represent a hierarchical part list database using just one table with a "parent" field that points to the table itself... much better is having two tables instead, part and component, where component has two references to part and and a quantity.
Your solution is fine.
If you're uncomfortable with the owner column being nullable, you could rely on some magic user record (perhaps with an id of zero) which would be the "system user". So newly created accounts would be owned by user-zero, until their ownership was suitably redefined. That seems smellier than allowing accounts to have a null owner, to me, anyway.
For the current requirement to have only one account per user
alter table UserAccount add constraint un_user_account unique(UserID);
and when the requirement changes to many-to-many, drop the constraint
alter table UserAccount drop constraint un_user_account;
For the one owner only, simply enforce that on the application level.
I am trying to determine how the tables need to be linked in which ways.
The employees tables is directly linked to a number of tables which provide more information. A few of those tables have even more details.
Employees have a unique employeeid but I understand best practice is to still have a id?
Customers have a unique customerid
Employees have a manager
Managers are employees
Customers have a manager associated with them. manager associated with them
Employees may have a academic, certification and/or professional information.
With all of this said what would be the best recommendation for creating primary and foreign keys? Is there a better way to handle the design?
EDIT
Updated diagram to reflect feedback thus far. See comments to understand changes taking place.
Though your question is sensible, before you go any further in design, I would suggest for you to spend some time understanding relationships, foreign keys and how they propagate through relationships.
The diagram is utterly wrong. It will help it you start naming primary keys with full name, TableNameID, like EmployeeID; then it will become obvious how keys propagate through relationships. If you had full names you would have noticed that all your arrows are pointing in the wrong direction; parent and child are reversed. Anyway, takes some practice. So I would suggest that you rework the diagram and post the new version, so that we can comment on that one. It should start looking something like this (just a small segment)
EDIT
This is supposed to point you to towards the next step. See if you can read description (specification) and follow the diagram at the same time.
Each employee has one manager, a manager manages many employees.
A manager is an employee.
Each customer is managed by an employee who acts as an account manager for that customer.
Account manages for a customer may change over time.
Each employee is a member of one team, each team has many employees.
Employee performance for each employee is tracked over time.
Employee may have many credentials, each credential belongs to one employee only.
Credential is academic or professional.
Employees have unique employeeID but I understand best practice is to
still have a id?
No. (But keep reading.) You need an id number in two cases: 1) when you don't have any other way to identify an entity, and 2) when you're trying to improve join performance. And that doesn't always work. ID numbers always require more joins, but when the critical information is carried in human-readable codes or in natural keys, you don't need a join to get to it. Also, routine use of ID numbers often introduces data integrity problems, because unique constraints on natural keys are often omitted. For example, USPS postal codes for state names are unique, but tables that use ID numbers instead of USPS postal codes often omit the unique constraint on that two-character column. In your case, you need a unique constraint on employee number regardless. (But keep reading.)
Employees have a manager.
Does the table "team" implement this requirement? If the "manager" table identifies managers, then your other manager columns should reference "manager". (In this diagram, that's customers, team, and customer_orders.)
Managers are employees.
And that information is stored in the table "manager"?
Customers have a manager associated with them.
And so does each order. Did you mean to do that?
Employees may have a academic, certification and/or professional
information.
But apparently you can't record any of that information unless you store a skill first. That doesn't sound like a good approach. Give it some more thought.
Whenever you design tables with overlapping predicates (overlapping meanings), you need to stop and sit on your hands for a few minutes. In this case, the predicates of the tables "employees" and "customers" overlap.
If employees can be customers, which is the case for almost every business, then you have set the stage for update anomalies. An employee's last name changes. Clearly, you must update "employees". But do you have to update "customers" too? How do you know? You can't really tell, because those two tables have independent id numbers.
An informal rule of thumb: if any real-world entity has more than one primary key identifying it in your database, you have a problem. In this case, an employee who is also a customer would have two independent primary keys identifying that person--an employee id and a customer id.
Consider adding a table of persons, some of whom will be employees, and some of whom will be customers. If your database is well-designed and useful, I'll bet that later some of the persons will be prospects, some will be job applicants, and so on. You will need an id number for persons, because in the most general case all you can count on knowing is their name.
At some point, you'll have to take your database design knowledge to the next level. For an early start, read this article on people's names.