A new requirement has come into an existing application. Current, we have an organization table, and it has a child table CalendarEvents. Now, the request is to allow either the User table, the Organization table, or the Division table own calendar events. I am thinking something needs to change because right now, this would leave me with creating the following table structure:
Organization (organization_id)
User (user_id, organization_id)
Division (division_id),
Calendar (calendar_id, organization_id, user_id, division_id),
CalendarEvents (calendar_event_id, calendar_id)
I am trying to avoid linking Calendar to multiple parents. Is there are better way to do this that I am missing? (An organization/user/division can have multiple calendars, but only one org/user/division can own a calendar)
Thanks for any input.
Since User instances and Organization instances can have their own events, I'd be inclined to make separate tables:
Organization
OrganizationCalendarEvents (with FK to Organization)
User
UserCalendarEvents (with FK to User)
In this way, the two entities can control their own events. In addition, if you keep the structure the same, you could use a single base class in your middle-tier which can load from either table.
If the CalendarEvents for each entity (User, Organization, and Division) are mutually exclusive, I might start out with three identical tables of events: UserCalendarEvents, OrganizationCalendarEvents, and DivisionCalendarEvents.
A better solution, though, may be to define those as three tables of links:
UserCalendarEvents
user_id
calendar_event_id
OrganizationCalendarEvents
organization_id
calendar_event_id
DivisionCalendarEvents
division_id
calendar_event_id
Yes. There is a technique called "morphing" which is appropriate for your case. Your CalendarEvents table should have a field called "owner_type" and another field called "owner_id". "owner_type" would indicate the table to which "owner_id" is a foreign key for the particular row. If owner_type is 1, then owner_id is a user_id; if owner_type is 2, then owner_id is an organization_id. And so forth.
One table column for many fk tables? .
and
multiple tables need one to many relationship .
If you want the DBMS to enforce the integrity rule that any calendar event is always either for an X, or a Y, or a Z (and just one of them), then you'll have to create three tables.
You can always create a view of "all calendar events" by UNIONing them together (after projecting away the owner column, of course). Obviously, that view is not updatable.
If you set up three separate tables with only a "link" to a "shared" events table, you still won't be guarded from having "orphaned" events.
Related
Im thinking about what is the better way to design a database with the following statements:
There are 3 kinds of users (3 differents roles).
They have some common fields, however they have differents fields too.
Solution A:
All user in the same table (some users will have empty fieds depending of their role).
Solution B:
A main table where i will add users and their role. In addition i will create 3 extra tables where i will record with extra fields (depending of the table) and each record will have an id related with the user in the main table.
Solution C: A main table with basic user info, and a second table with the metadata user info where each record means a field of a user. That it's similar than WordPress
Yours is a case of Specialization/Generalization. Since you said User (1, 2, 3) share common properties, it is best to have a General entity - User with all the common attributes.
Then you can Specialize to 3 different types and have the specific attributes to each type.
So, option B is what I think is best solution for your problem.
Option A will cause too many null values and option C is overly complicated.
That depends :-)
Will you ever treat the users the same? E.g. at login time: Will someone just login with a username and this can be any of the three user types? Then you need a user table with a username and a unique index on it. This is solution A or B. I'd prefer B over A, so you can decide which of the fields are nullable for the specific role.
Or will you never deal with a user with an unknown role (such as: a person logs in with a role plus a username, so it suffices to have three different tables each with their own usernames)? This would be three special user tables and no common user table.
Option C would be something easy to implement in order to give users additional attributes, but can become a hassle. Especially when there are obligatory fields and fields that link to other tables (such as a job number that is meant to be the key in the jobs table, but you cannot use a foreign key then). I usually don't take this route, if it is avoidable.
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
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 drew this layout scheme, but now i need to convert for a "mysql layout". So the generalization must use two junction tables, correct? (one for student and other for worker)
An about the multiplicity, users can be workers or students, but one user only can be one worker and one worker only can be an user? this does not make much sense...?
basically, how i can convert this generalization for something that can be executable for mysql code.
thanks
There are 3 ways ORM's do it
First way is give them each a separate table and join the tables. (3tables)
Second way only works if your users class is abstract, then then you take 2 tables for your sub-classes.
And the last and my favorite way.
you stuff everything in one table, and introduce a discriminator column.
basically make a table containing all the fields of users, student and worker.
add an extra column for the type and fill em up accordingly.
You can select all students / workers easily using the discriminator column, and you don 't have to spam joins. The downside is it takes up extra space.
One way to handle this is to define three tables: users, workers, and students. The workers and students tables each has a user_id field that is a foreign key tied to the same field in the users table.
I'm designing a mySQL DB and I'm having the following issue:
Say I have a wall_posts table. Walls can belong to either an event or a user.
Hence the wall_posts table must references either event_id or user_id (foreign key constraint).
What is the best way to build such a relationship, considering I must always be able to know who the walls belong to ... ?
I've been considering using 2 tables, such as event_wall_posts and user_wall_posts so one got an event_id field and the other a user_id one, but I believe there must be something much better than such a redundant workaround ...
Is there a way to use an intermediate table to link the wall_posts to either an event_id or a user_id ?
Thanks in advance,
Edit : seems there is not a clear design to do this and both approach seem okay, so,
which one will be the fastest if there is a lots of data ?
Is it preferable to have 2 separates table (so queries might be faster, since there will be twice less data in tables ...), or is it still preferable to have a better OO approach with a single wall_posts table referencing a wall table (and then both users and events will have a uniquewall_id`)
Why is it redundant? You won't write code twice to handle them, you will use the same code, just change the name of the table in the SQL.
Another reason to take this approach is that some time in the future you will discover you need new different fields for each entity.
What you're talking about is called an exclusive arc and it's not a good practice. It's hard to enforce referential integrity. You're probably better off using, in an object sense, a common supertype.
That can be modelled in a couple of ways:
A supertype table called, say, wall. Two subtype tables (user_wall and event_wall) that link to a user and event respectively as the owner. The wall_posts table links to the supertype table; or
Putting both entity types into one table and having a type column. That way you're not linking to two separate tables.
Go for the simplest solution: add both an event_id and a user_id column to the wall_posts table. Use constraints to enforce that one of them is null, and the other is not.
Anything more complex smells like overnormalization to me :)
A classical approach to this problem is:
Create a table called wall_container and keep properties common to both users and events in it
Reference both users and events to wall_container
Reference wall_posts to wall_container
However, this is not very efficient and it's not guaranteed that this wall_container doesn't containt records that are not either a user or an event.
SQL is not particularly good in handling multiple inheritance.
Your wall and event has their own unique IDs .. right?? then their is no need for another table . let the wall_post table have a attribute as origin which will direct to the record of whatever the record is event's or users. '
If the wall and event may have same ID then make a table with three attributes origin(primary), ID number and type. There ID number will be what you set, type defining what kind of entity does the ID represent and origin will be a new ID which you will generate maybe adding different prefix. In case of same ID the origin table will help you immensely for other things to other than wall posts.