I am wondering about a 'many to two' relationship. The child can be linked to either of two parents, but not both. Is there any way to reinforce this? Also I would like to prevent duplicate entries in the child.
A real world example would be phone numbers, users and companies. A company can have many phone numbers, a user can have many phone numbers, but ideally the user shouldn't provide the same phone number as the company as there would be duplicate content in the DB.
This question shows that you don't fully understand entity relationships (no rudeness intended). Of which there are four (technically only 3) types below:
One to One
One to Many
Many to One
Many to Many
One to One (1:1):
In this case a table has been broken up into two parts for purposes of complying with normalisation, or more usually the open closed principle.
Normalisation compliance: You might have a business rule that each customer has only one account. Technically, you could in this case say customer and account could all be in the same table, but this breaks the rules of normalisation, so you split them and make a 1:1.
Open-Close principle compliance: A customer table, might have id, first & last names, and address. Later someone decides to add a date of birth and with it the ability to calculate age along with a bunch of other much needed fields. This is an over simplified example of one to one, but you get the main use for it is to extend your database without breaking existing code. Much code written (sadly) is tightly coupled to the database so changes in the structure of a table will break the code. Adding a 1:1 like this will extend the table to meet new requirements without modifying the origional, thereby allowing old code to continue functioning normally and new code to make use of the new db features.
The downside of normalisation and extending tables using 1:1 relationships in this way is performance. Often times on heavly used systems, the first target to increase database performance is de-normalising and combining such tables into a single table, and optimising the indexes thus removing the need to use joins and read from multiple tables. Normalisation / De-Normalisation is neither a good or bad thing, as it depends on the needs of the system. Most systems usually start off normalised changing back when needed, but this change needs to be done very carefully as mentioned, if code is tightly coupled to the DB structure, it will almost definitely cause the system to fail. i.e. When you combine 2 tables, one ceases to exist, all the code that includes that now nonexistant table fails until it is modified (in db terms, imagine connecting relationships to any of the tables in the 1:1, when you remove those tables, this breaks the relationships, and so the structure has to be greatly modified to compensate. Unfortunately, such bad designs are much easier to spot in the DB world than in the software world in most cases and you don't usually notice something went wrong in code until it all falls apart) unless the system is properly designed with separation of concerns in mind.
It the closest thing you can get to inheritance in object oriented programming. But its not quite the same.
One to Many (1:M) / Many to One (M:1):
These two relationships (hense why 4 become 3), are the most popular relationship types. They are both the same type of relationship, the only thing that changes is your point of view. An example A customer has many phone numbers, or alternately, many phone numbers can belong to a customer.
In object oriented programming this would be considered composition. Its not inheritance, but you are saying one item is composed of many parts. This is usually represented with arrays / lists / collections etc. inside of classes as opposed to an inheritance structure.
Many to Many (M:M):
This type of relationship with current technology is impossible. For this reason we need to break it down into two one to many relationships with an "association" table joining them. The many side of the two one to many relationships is always on the association / link table.
For your example, the person who said you need a many to many is correct. Because a two to many is effectively a many (meaning more than one) to many relationship. This is the only way you would get your system to work. Unless you are intending to research the field of relational calculus to find some new type of relationship that would allow this.
Also for such relationships (m2m) you have two choices, either create a compound key in the linker table so the combination of fields become a unique entry (if you are interested in db optimisation this is the slower choice, but takes less space). Alternately, you create a third field with an auto generated id column and make that the primary key (for db optimisation, this is the faster choice, but takes more space).
In your example specifically above...
A real world example would be phone numbers, users and companies. A company can have many phone numbers, a user can have many phone numbers, but ideally the user shouldn't provide the same phone number as the company as there would be duplicate content in the DB.
This would be a many to many relationship with the phone number table as the linker table between companies and users. As explained, to ensure no phone number is repeated, you simply set it as the primary key or use another primary key and set the phone number field to unique.
For those kind of questions, it is really down to how you phrase them. What is causing you to get confused about this, and how you overcome this confusion to see the solution is simple. Rephrase the problem as follows. Start by asking is it a one to one, if the answer is no, move on. Next ask is it a one to many, if the answer is no move on. The only other option remaining is many to many. Be careful though, ensure you have considered the first 2 questions carefully before moving on. Many inexperienced database people often over complicate issues by defining one to many as many to many. Once again, the most popular type of relationship by far is one to many (I would say 90%) with the many to many and one to one spliting the remaining 10% 7/3 respectevely. But those figures are just my personal perspective, so dont go quoting them as industry standard statistics. My point is to make extra extra sure it is definitely not a one to many before choosing many to many. It is worth the extra effort.
So now to find the linker table between the two, decide which two are your main tables, and what fields need to be shared between them. In this case, company and user tables both need to share the phone. Hense you need to make a new phone table as the linker.
The warning alarm of misunderstanding should show as soon as you decide none of the 3 are working for you. This should be enough to tell you that you simply are not phrasing the relationship question correctly. You will get better at it as time passes, but it is an essential skill and really should be mastered as soon as possible for your own sanaty.
Of course you could also go to an object oriented database which will allow a range of other relationships called "Hierarchacal" relationships. Thats great if you are thinking of becomming a programmer too. But I wouldnt recommend this as it going to make your head hurt when you start finding ways to combine the various types of relationships. Especially given there is not much need since nearly all databases in the world consist of just those 3 types of relationships unless they are something super duper special.
Hope this was a reasonable answer. Thanks for taking the time to read it.
Just make phone number a key in your contact numbers table.
For your phone number example, you would put the phone number in a table by itself, with an ID.
Then you link to that phone_id from each of users and companies.
For your parents example, you don't link the child to parent - instead you link the parent to the child. OR, you put both parents in the same table, and the child just links to one of them.
Related
I’m developing a database. I’d appreciate some help restructuring 2 to 3 tables so the database is both compliant with the first 3 normal forms; and practical to use and to expand on / add to in the future. I want to invest time now to reduce effort / and confusion later.
PREAMBLE
Please be aware that I'm both a nube, and an amateur, though I have a certain amount of experience and skill and an abundance of enthusiasm!
BACKGROUND TO PROJECT
I am writing a small (though ambitious!) web application (using PHP and AJAX to a MySQL database). It is essentially an inventory management system, for recording and viewing the current location of each individual piece of equipment, and its maintenance history. If relevant, transactions will be very low (probably less than 100 a day, but with a possibility of simultaneous connections / operations). Row count will also be very low (maybe a few thousand).
It will deal with many completely different categories of equipment, eg bikes and lamps (to take random examples). Each unit of equipment will have its details or specifications recorded in the database. For a bike, an important specification might be frame colour, whereas a lamp it might require information regarding lampshade material.
Since the categories of equipment have so little in common, I think the most logical way to store the information is 1 table per category. That way, each category can have columns specific to that category.
I intend to store a list of categories in a separate table. Each category will have an id which is unique to that category. (Depending on the final design, this may function as a lookup table and / or as a table to run queries against.) There are likely to be very few categories (perhaps 10 to 20), unless the system is particulary succesful and it expands.
A list of bikes will be held in the bikes table.
Each bike will have an id which is unique to that bike (eg bike 0001).
But the same id will exist in the lamp table (ie lamp 0001).
With my application, I want the user to select (from a dropdown list) the category type (eg bike).
They will then enter the object's numeric id (eg 0001).
The combination of these two ids is sufficient information to uniquely identify an object.
Images:
Current Table Design
Proposed Additional Table
PROBLEM
My gut feeling is that there should be an “overarching table” that encompasses every single article of equipment no matter what category it comes from. This would be far simpler to query against than god knows how many mini tables. But when I try to construct it, it seems like it will break various normal forms. Eg introducing redundancy, possibility of inconsistency, referential integrity problems etc. It also begins to look like a domain table.
Perhaps the overarching table should be a query or view rather than an entity?
Could you please have a look at the screenshots and let me know your opinion. Thanks.
For various reasons, I’d prefer to use surrogate keys rather than natural keys if possible. Ideally, I’d prefer to have that surrogate key in a single column.
Currently, the bike (or lamp) table uses just the first column as its primary key. Should I expand this to a composite key including the Equipment_Category_ID column too? Then make the Equipment_Article table into a view joining on these two columns (iteratively for each equipment category). Optionally Bike_ID and Lamp_ID columns could be renamed to something generic like Equipment_Article_ID. This might make the query simpler, but is there a risk of losing specificity? It would / could still be qualified by the table name.
Speaking of redundancy, the Equipment_Category_ID in the current lamp or bike tables seems a bit redundant (if every item / row in that table has the same value in that column).
It all still sounds messy! But surely this must be very common problem for eg online electronics stores, rental shops, etc. Hopefully someone will say oh that old chestnut! Fingers crossed! Sorry for not being concise, but I couldn't work out what bits to leave out. Most of it seems relevant, if a bit chatty. Thanks in advance.
UPDATE 27/03/2014 (Reply to #ElliotSchmelliot)
Hi Elliot.
Thanks for you reply and for pointing me in the right direction. I studied OOP (in Java) but wasn't aware that something similar was possible in SQL. I read the link you sent with interest, and the rest of the site/book looks like a great resource.
Does MySQL InnoDB Support Specialization & Generalization?
Unfortunately, after 3 hours searching and reading, I still can't find the answer to this question. Keywords I'm searching with include: MySQL + (inheritance | EER | specialization | generalization | parent | child | class | subclass). The only positive result I found is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_entity%E2%80%93relationship_model. It mentions MySQL Workbench.
Possible Redundancy of Equipment_Category (Table 3)
Yes and No. Because this is a lookup table, it currently has a function. However because every item in the Lamp or the Bike table is of the same category, the column itself may be redundant; and if it is then the Equipment_Category table may be redundant... unless it is required elsewhere. I had intended to use it as the RowSource / OptionList for a webform dropdown. Would it not also be handy to have Equipment_Category as a column in the proposed Equipment parent table. Without it, how would one return a list of all Equipment_Names for the Lamp category (ignoring distinct for the moment).
Implementation
I have no way of knowing what new categories of equipment may need to be added in future, so I’ll have to limit attributes included in the superclass / parent to those I am 100% sure would be common to all (or allow nulls I suppose); sacrificing duplication in many child tables for increased flexibility and hopefully simpler maintenance in the long run. This is particulary important as we will not have professional IT support for this project.
Changes really do have to be automated. So I like the idea of the stored procedure. And the CreateBike example sounds familiar (in principle if not in syntax) to creating an instance of a class in Java.
Lots to think about and to teach myself! If you have any other comments, suggestions etc, they'd be most welcome. And, could you let me know what software you used to create your UML diagram. Its styling is much better than those that I've used.
Cheers!
You sound very interested in this project, which is always awesome to see!
I have a few suggestions for your database schema:
You have individual tables for each Equipment entity i.e. Bike or Lamp. Yet you also have an Equipment_Category table, purely for identifying a row in the Bike table as a Bike or a row in the Lamp table as a Lamp. This seems a bit redundant. I would assume that each row of data in the Bike table represents a Bike, so why even bother with the category table?
You mentioned that your "gut" feeling is telling you to go for an overarching table for all Equipment. Are you familiar with the practice of generalization and specialization in database design? What you are looking for here is specialization (also called "top-down".) I think it would be a great idea to have an overarching or "parent" table that represents Equipment. Then, each sub-entity such as Bike or Lamp would be a child table of Equipment. A parent table only has the fields that all child tables share.
With these suggestions in mind, here is how I might alter your schema:
In the above schema, everything starts as Equipment. However, each Equipment can be specialized into Lamp, Bike, etc. The Equipment entity has all of the common fields. Lamp and Bike each have fields specific to their own type. When creating an entity, you first create the Equipment, then you create the specialized entity. For example, say we are adding the "BMX 200 Ultra" bike. We first create a record in the Equipment table with the generic information (equipmentName, dateOfPurchase, etc.) Then we create the specialized record, in this case a Bike record with any additional bike-specific fields (wheelType, frameColor, etc.) When creating the specialized entities, we need to make sure to link them back to the parent. This is why both the Lamp and Bike entities have a foreign key for equipmentID.
An easy and effective way to add specialized entities is to create a stored procedure. For example, lets say we have a stored procedure called CreateBike that takes in parameters bikeName, dateOfPurchase, wheelType, and frameColor. The stored procedure knows we are creating a Bike, and therefore can easily create the Equipment record, insert the generic equipment data, create the bike record, insert the specialized bike data, and maintain the foreign key relationship.
Using specialization will make your transactional life very simple. For example, if you want all Equipment purchased before 1/1/14, no joins are needed. If you want all Bikes with a frameColor of blue, no joins are needed. If you want all Lamps made of felt, no joins are needed. The only time you will need to join a specialized table back to the Equipment table is if you want data both from the parent entity and the specialized entity. For example, show all Lamps that use 100 Watt bulbs and are named "Super Lamp."
Hope this helps and best of luck!
Edit
Specialization and Generalization, as mentioned in your provided source, is part of an Enhanced Entity Relationship (EER) which helps define a conceptual data model for your schema. As such, it does not need to be "supported" per say, it is more of a design technique. Therefore any database schema naturally supports specialization and generalization as long as the designer implements it.
As far as your Equipment_Category table goes, I see where you are coming from. It would indeed make it easy to have a dropdown of all categories. However, you could simply have a static table (only contains Strings that represent each category) to help with this population, and still keep your Equipment tables separate. You mentioned there will only be around 10-20 categories, so I see no reason to have a bridge between Equipment and Equipment_Category. The fewer joins the better. Another option would be to include an "equipmentCategory" field in the Equipment table instead of having a whole table for it. Then you could simply query for all unique equipmentCategory values.
I agree that you will want to keep your Equipment table to guaranteed common values between all children. Definitely. If things get too complicated and you need more defined entities, you could always break entities up again down the road. For example maybe half of your Bike entities are RoadBikes and the other half are MountainBikes. You could always continue the specialization break down to better get at those unique fields.
Stored Procedures are great for automating common queries. On top of that, parametrization provides an extra level of defense against security threats such as SQL injections.
I use SQL Server. The diagram I created is straight out of SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS). You can simply expand a database, right click on the Database Diagrams folder, and create a new diagram with your selected tables. SSMS does the rest for you. If you don't have access to SSMS I might suggest trying out Microsoft Visio or if you have access to it, Visual Paradigm.
I am tackling a problem in class to design a mySQL representation of a web that stores a list of events associated with a person. So, for this table/tables, it would have 2 columns, one of which is the person's name and the other is the event. However, a person will generally have anywhere from 30-1000 events, so this table, which we plan to have for our entire undergraduate class of 6000 students, will have millions of entries. Is there a better way to store this in mySQL that will take less space, but will still be able to retrieve individual events and the list of people that attended it just as easily as if it was a table of two columns?
Yes, there is a technique called many-to-many, and essentially breaks your one table into three, which is critical when you consider that there are indeed exactly three entities being modeled (as a good sanity check)
Person
Event
A Person's association with an Event
You model this as three tables, with the first two having essentially two columns each: one with a unique index (called "primary key"), and the second being a semantic name (person name, event name). Note that you can also add any number of columns to these with only one factor of increased storage (most likely your first move will be to add a date column to the event table).
The third table is the interesting one, it contains only 2 columns, each numeric, both of which are references to the other tables (each row is simply: (person_id, event_id)). We term these "foreign keys".
This structure means a few things:
No matter how many events someone goest to, that someone is only represented once.
same with events, not matter how many attendees
The attendance is a "first-class" entity, and can grow to include it's own attributes (i.e. "role")
This structure is called many-to-many because each person may attend many events, and each event may have many attendees.
The quintessential feature of the design is that no single piece of domain knowledge is repeated, only "keys" are repeated as necessary to model the real-world domain. (i.e. in your first example, accounting for a name change would require an unknown quantity of updates, and might lead to data anomalies, avoidance of which is a primary concern of database normalization.
Don't worry about "space". This isn't the 1970s and we're not going to run out of columns on punch cards to store data. You should be concerned with expressing your requirements in the proper, most normalized data structure. With proper indexing there shouldn't be a problem, not with this volume of data.
Remember indexes need to be defined on anything you will include as part of a WHERE clause, and sometimes you may need to add additional indexes for large lists fetched with ORDER BY and LIMIT.
Whenever possible or practical use an integer identifier instead of a string. These are stored as a small number of bytes, typically 4, compared with a variable length string which is typically at least the length of the string in bytes plus 1.
A properly normalized database will use numerical identifiers for things anyway, so this kind if thing isn't a huge concern. The only time you go against this, or deliberately de-normalize your data, is when you have a legitimate performance problem that cannot be easily solved using some other method.
As always, test your schema by generating large amounts of dummy data and see how it performs. Since you have a good idea of the requirements in advance, do some testing at those levels, and then, to be on the safe side, try 2x, 5x and 10x the data to see how much flexibility your design has. It's okay to have performance limitations so long as you know at what kind of scale you'll experience them.
mySQL relational databases were designed specifically to handle this sort of problem. Handling millions of entries is not a problem. Complex queries may take a couple seconds but will perform remarkably well.
It is best design to store 1 event per row. The way you are going about it sounds like the best way. Good Luck.
I've taken over development on a project that has a user table with over 30 columns. And the bad thing is that changes and additions to the columns keep happening.
This isn't right.
Should I push to have the extra fields moved into a second table as values and create a third table that stores those column names?
user
id
email
user_field
id
name
user_value
id
user_field_id
user_id
value
Do not go the key / value route. SQL isn't designed to handle it and it'll make getting actual data out of your database an exercise in self torture. (Examples: Indexes don't work well. Joins are lots of fun when you have to join just to get the data you're joining on. It goes on.)
As long as the data is normalized to a decent level you don't have too many columns.
EDIT: To be clear, there are some problems that can only be solved with the key / value route. "Too many columns" isn't one of them.
It's hard to say how many is too many. It's really very subjective. I think the question you should be asking is not, "Are there too many columns?", but, rather, "Do these columns belong here?" What I mean by that is if there are columns in your User table that aren't necessarily properties of the user, then they may not belong. For example, if you've got a bunch of columns that sum up the user's address, then maybe you pull those out into an Address table with an FK into User.
I would avoid using key/value tables if possible. It may seem like an easy way to make things extensible, but it's really just a pain in the long run. If you find that your schema is changing very consistently you may want to consider putting some kind of change control in place to vet changes to only those that are necessary, or move to another technology that better supports schema-less storage like NoSQL with MongoDB or CouchDB.
This is often known as EAV, and whether this is right for your database depends on a lot of factors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-attribute-value_model
http://karwin.blogspot.com/2009/05/eav-fail.html
http://www.slideshare.net/billkarwin/sql-antipatterns-strike-back
Too many columns is not really one of them.
Changes and additions to a table are not a bad thing if it means they accurately reflect changes in your business requirements.
If the changes and additons are continual then perhaps you need to sit down and do a better job of defining the requirements. Now I can't say if 30 columns is toomany becasue it depends on how wide they are and whether thay are something that shouldbe moved to a related table. For instnce if you have fields like phone1, phone2, phone 3, youo have a mess that needs to be split out into a related table for user_phone. Or if all your columns are wide (and your overall table width is wider than the pages the databases stores data in) and some are not that frequently needed for your queries, they might be better in a related table that has a one-to-one relationship. I would probably not do this unless you have an actual performance problem though.
However, of all the possible choices, the EAV model you described is the worst one both from a maintainabilty and performance viewpoint. It is very hard to write decent queries against this model.
This really depends on what you're trying to do.
This design problem is turning out to be a bit more "interesting" than I'd expected....
For context, I'll be implementing whatever solution I derive in Access 2007 (not much choice--customer requirement. I might be able to talk them into a different back end, but the front end has to be Access (and therefore VBA & Access SQL)). The two major activities that I anticipate around these tables are batch importing new structures from flat files and reporting on the structures (with full recursion of the entire structure). Virtually no deletes or updates (aside from entire trees getting marked as inactive when a new version is created).
I'm dealing with two main tables, and wondering if I really have a handle on how to relate them: Products and Parts (there are some others, but they're quite straightforward by comparison).
Products are made up of Parts. A Part can be used in more than one Product, and most Products employ more than one Part. I think that a normal many-to-many resolution table can satisfy this requirement (mostly--I'll revisit this in a minute). I'll call this Product-Part.
The "fun" part is that many Parts are also made up of Parts. Once again, a given Part may be used in more than one parent Part (even within a single Product). Not only that, I think that I have to treat the number of recursion levels as effectively arbitrary.
I can capture the relations with a m-to-m resolution from Parts back to Parts, relating each non-root Part to its immediate parent part, but I have the sneaking suspicion that I may be setting myself up for grief if I stop there. I'll call this Part-Part. Several questions occur to me:
Am I borrowing trouble by wondering about this? In other words, should I just implement the two resolution tables as outlined above, and stop worrying?
Should I also create Part-Part rows for all the ancestors of each non-root Part, with an extra column in the table to store the number of generations?
Should Product-Part contain rows for every Part in the Product, or just the root Parts? If it's all Parts, would a generation indicator be useful?
I have (just today, from the Related Questions), taken a look at the Nested Set design approach. It looks like it could simplify some of the requirements (particularly on the reporting side), but thinking about generating the tree during the import of hundreds (occasionally thousands) of Parts in a Product import is giving me nightmares before I even get to sleep. Am I better off biting that bullet and going forward this way?
In addition to the specific questions above, I'd appreciate any other comentary on the structural design, as well as hints on how to process this, either inbound or outbound (though I'm afraid I can't entertain suggestions of changing the language/DBMS environment).
Bills of materials and exploded parts lists are always so much fun. I would implement Parts as your main table, with a Boolean field to say a part is "sellable". This removes the first-level recursion difference and the redundancy of Parts that are themselves Products. Then, implement Products as a view of Parts that are sellable.
You're on the right track with the PartPart cross-ref table. Implement a constraint on that table that says the parent Part and the child Part cannot be the same Part ID, to save yourself some headaches with infinite recursion.
Generational differences between BOMs can be maintained by creating a new Part at the level of the actual change, and in any higher levels in which the change must be accomodated (if you want to say that this new Part, as part of its parent hierarchy, results in a new Product). Then update the reference tree of any Part levels that weren't revised in this generational change (to maintain Parts and Products that should not change generationally if a child does). To avoid orphans (unreferenced Parts records that are unreachable from the top level), Parts can reference their predecessor directly, creating a linked list of ancestors.
This is a very complex web, to be sure; persisting tree-like structures of similarly-represented objects usually are. But, if you're smart about implementing constraints to enforce referential integrity and avoid infinite recursion, I think it'll be manageable.
I would have one part table for atomic parts, then a superpart table with a superpartID and its related subparts. Then you can have a product/superpart table.
If a part is also a superpart, then you just have one row for the superpartID with the same partID.
Maybe 'component' is a better term than superpart. Components could be reused in larger components, for example.
You can find sample Bill of Materials database schemas at
http://www.databaseanswers.org/data_models/
The website offers Access applications for some of the models. Check with the author of the website.
How do you know when to create a new table for very similar object types?
Example:
To learn mysql I'm building a model solar system. For the purposes of my project, planets have many similar attributes to dwarf planets, centaurs, and comets. Dwarf planets are almost completely identical to planets. Centaurs and comets are only different from planets because their orbital path has more variation. Should I have a separate table for each type of object, or should they share tables?
The example is probably too simple, but I'm also interested in best practices. Like should I use separate tables just in case I want to make planets and dwarf planets different in the future, or are their any efficiency reasons for keeping them in the same table.
Normal forms is what you should be interested with. They pretty much are the convention for building tables.
Any design that doesn't break the first, second or third normal form is fine by me. That's a pretty long list of requirement though, so I suggest you go read it off the Wikipedia links above.
It depends on what type of information you want to store about the objects. If the information for all of them is the same, say orbit radius, mass and name, then you can use the same table. However, if there are different properties for each (say atmosphere composition for planets, etc.) then you can either use separate tables for each (not very normalized) or have one table for basic properties like orbit, mass and name and a second table for just the properties that are unique to planets (and a similar table for comets, etc. if needed). All objects would be in the first table but only planets would be in the second table and linked through a foreign key to the first table.
It's called Database Normalization
There are many normal forms. By applying normalization you will go through metadata (tables) and study the relationsships between data more clearly. By using the normalization techniques you will optimize the tables to prevent redundancy. This process will help you understand which entities to create based on the relationsships between the different fields.
You should most likely split the data about a planet etc so that the shared (common) information is in another table.
E.g.
Common (Table)
Diameter (Column)
Mass (Column)
Planet
Population
Comet
Speed
Poor columns I know. Have the Planet and Comet tables link to the Common data with a key.
This is definitely a subjective question. It sounds like you are already on the right lines of thinking. I would ask:
Do these objects share many attributes? If so, it's probably worth considering at the very least a base table to list them all in.
Does one object "extend" another - it has all the attributes of the other, plus some extras? If so, it might be worth adding another table with the extra attributes and a one-to-one mapping back to the base object.
Do both objects have many shared attributes and unshared attributes? If this is the case, maybe you need a single table plus a "data extension" system where each object can have a type or category that specifies any amount of extra attributes that may be associated with it.
Do the objects only share one or two attributes? In this case, they are probably dissimilar enough to separate into multiple tables.
You may also ask yourself how you are going to query the data. Will you ever want to get them all in the same list? It's always a good idea to combine data into tables with other data they will commonly be queried with. For example, an "attachments" table where the file can be an image or a video, instead of images and video tables, if you commonly want to query for all attachments. Don't split into multiple tables unless there is a really good reason.
If you will ever want to get planets and comets in one single query, they will pretty much have to be in the same table if you want the database to work efficiently. Inheritance should be handled inside your app itself :)
Here's my answer to a similar question, which I think applies here as well:
How do you store business activities in a SQL database?
There are many different ways to express inheritance in your relational model. For example you can try to squish everything in to one table and have a field that allows you to distinguish between the different types or have one table for the shared attributes with relationships to a child table with the specific attributes etc... in either choice you're still storing the same information. When going from a domain model to a relational model this is what is called an impedance mismatch. Both choices have different trade offs, for example one table will be easier to query, but multiple tables will have higher data density.
In my experience it's best not to try to answer these questions from a database perspective, but let your domain model, and sometimes your application framework of choice, drive the table structure. Of course this isn't always a viable choice, especially when performance is concerned.
I recommend you start by drawing on paper the relationships you want to express and then go from there. Does the table structure you've chosen represent the domain accurately? Is it possible to query to extract the information you want to report on? Are the queries you've written complicated or slow? Answering these questions and others like them will hopefully guide you towards creating a good relational model.
I'd also suggest reading up on database normalization if you're serious about learning good relational modeling principals.
I'd probably have a table called [HeavenlyBodies] or some such thing. Then have a look up table with the type of body, ie Planet, comet, asteroid, star, etc. All will share similar things such as name, size, weight. Most of the answers I read so far all have good advise. Normalization is good, but I feel you can take it too far sometimes. 3rd normal is a good goal.