I have two tables, applications and applicationRevisions, structured:
applications (id, time, user, views)
applicationRevisions(id, application, time, user, name, description)
The latter holds 'revisions' of an application page, containing title and description, so it's a one-to-many relationship. When an application page is shown, the latest applicationRevisions row with the matching application ID is chosen.
However, I have no way of knowing if an application with a certain name exists at any particular time because previous revisions may have different names, and the name is not stored in the applications table.
I have a workarounds; store the current name as a field in applications, and when an application is edited, add the row as usual to applicationRevisions, but then update the name in the applications row.
Is there a better way to do this?
So, you'd like to search for a name in to get the application and then get the most recent revision of that application, which may no longer have that name. This is certainly possible with subqueries but what are you going to do about applications which happen to have the same name for some revisions?
Would be much more clear if the application table could hold the name and description. To be honest, this could just be a single table since time and user in application would likely just be the same as used for the first revision of each application. Only the views field is left and that could be in a table of just applications_views (application, views).
Anyway, if you want to avoid major changes to the schema and the name confusion between applications is OK, you could make a query something like this:
select * from applications join applicationRevisions
on (applications.id=applicationRevisions.application)
where applicationRevisions.id in
(select max(id)
from applicationRevisions
where name = 'foobar'
group by application);
If I guessed the relationships correctly, this will give you all fields from the most recent revision of each application that ever used the name 'foobar'.
Correct me If I am missing something here, every application entry must atleast have a applicationRevision right ?
Why not use foreign key constraints ? Make application field of the applicationRevision table a foreign key. Identify application with a id and not a name. Make name the property of the revision.
So lets say you want to search for a application which has a name "wxyz", so you do a
select id,application from applicationRevision where name="wxyz" order by time DESC LIMIT 1;
This gives you the application id. You can do a JOIN and get application fields from a single query
Related
I have been working on a database design and I'm stuck hitting a wall. I'm ending up with what I'm reading is not a normalized database structure but I'm having issues trying to find a "more correct" design and if this design is acceptable how do I execute it in Access?
TLDR: If a table with a single column set as an auto number is an acceptable design, how do you go about inserting a record in it using Access?
The segment of the database of concern is creating a structure for storing companies. Requirements for this is that any changes need to be approved by another user and all historical changes need to be captured so that it can be easily reverted also a company can have multiple aliases but only one legal name.
There is three tables in my solution but one of them is a single column table. From what I've read 95% of people on stack overflow all think its a very bad idea but I've found one post were people are that there are cases for it. I think this is not normal also because I can't find a way to just create a new record in a table with only an auto number column (In Access I have not tried others yet).
Table Structure
Company Names : ID, Company ID, Is Legal Name, Created By, Created On, Approved On, Approved By, Event ID, Is Active
(A company could have a few different names known to the public: TD vs Toronto Dominion. Each name is inserted here with a reference to the company it belongs to)
Companies : ID (Auto Number)
(A company exists and this is its ID)
Companies History : ID, Company ID, Market ID, Holding Company ID, Created By, Created On, Approved On, Approved By, Event ID, Is Active
(These are the historical changes that have been made to the company and who did them and who approved them)
Column Notes:
Event ID : is a FK reference to a table holding each record of actions that have either created, updated or deleted records. (User Research using method [y], Typo Fix, ...)
Is Active : Since deleting records is not possible (historical records need to be kept) this column is used to track if this record is to be included in queries.
Options I see and their issues:
I could get rid of the companies table and make Companies History : ID be the new company id but I find that in that case each time I want to update a company I would need to update each FK reference to the previous company id (I don't think this would be a very normalized approach)
Another Option I see is that I get rid of Companies table and use Company Names : ID as the company id and I would add a column to Company Names called Alias of Company ID. I find that solution adds a log of complexity to my stored data where an alias has company information that differs from the entry that was aliased.
Another Option is that I could add the columns: Created By, Created On, Approved On, Approved By, Event ID and Is Active but this would be duplicating information found in the first record for this company in the Companies History table and this isn't adding any real description to this record.
Anther Option is that I make the Companies table a mirror of Companies History and that when I update or insert a record in Companies I would also insert a record Companies History. With this solution I find that again I duplicate information, that newest record in "Companies History" would hold the same information found in last Inserted or Updated record in in Companies
Another option but is to replace the Companies : ID auto number with a short text and I just get the hash of the current timestamp + a random int. I can now insert new records into this table using access but I feel that this is overkill since I just need the exact same functionality as the auto number.
Another option is move only the legal name into Companies table but now when the legal name of a company changes I have no way of tracking this. Also if I want a list of all names I need to use a union on Companies and Company Names. I find that using unions can reduce performances of queries and I use them only when explicitly needed.
If I don't want to duplicate any information and I don't want to update all FK it seems that I need a table with a single column. If this is acceptable how do I go about inserting a record into a table with a single column set to auto number in Access.
If Companies can be derived from CompanyNames (select distinct CompanyId from CompanyNames), there is no point storing again that information. Just replace that table by a view if you want it (but it as little added value).
On the other hand, if CreatedOn refers to the Company creation (not the row creation) then it is obviously a property of the Company, and I would rather work with
Companies --> Aliases.
But of course I don't know the ins and outs of the reality you're dealing with.
I have a table Student with field as followed,
Student table (one record per student)
student_id
Name
Parent_Name
Address_line1, Address_line2, Addess_line
Photo_path
Signature_file_path
Preferred_examcity_choice1,Preferred_examcity_choice1, Preferred_examcity_choice3
Gender
Nationality
.
.
.
I am inserting into this table on Registration form completion through the web interface.
Now there is one more module in a web interface for updating the student data, on every update request I am updating the student table records and inserting the new entry in student_data_change_request. student can change records any number of times.
student_data_change_request
request_id(auto_incr PK)
old_name
new_name
old_photo_path
new_photo_path
old_signature_file_path
new_signature_file_path
Now coming to problem, earlier students were allowed to change very few fields, now client want to allow the candidate to update more number of fields(around 20 fields) and adding old and new columns for the corresponding column isn't elegant and preferred(I guess), I will end up creating 40 columns to keep track of 20 columns. So how should I redesign my table? suggestions are welcomed.
One approach is to have a shadow table named (table)_xx that has the same columns, the time, date, update/insert/delete flag, user or whatever and no referential integrity. Set a trigger to update that table from the source whenever anything happens.
If you've got genuine business requirements that need history then do those properly but this pattern is great as a general audit, debugging and forensic tool.
It's also really easy to automate/script as you just generate it from the DB metadata.
Usually historical table looks like:
request_id
column_name
old_value
new_value
dt
request_id and column_name are primary key. When you update student table you insert new entry in student_data_change_request for each updating column.
Edited:
Another way:
request_id
value_type
name
photo_path
signature_file_path
...
and insert first entry with old values and second entry with new values. Colum value_type is mark old or new.
I would rather have just one table, with an additional column for effective date. Then a view that picks up just the most recent row for each student_id becomes your first "table". If for some reason you must show "current" and "most recently changed" values side-by-side, that is another view.
As usual, it all depends on how you intend to use the data.
My strong preference in these cases is the solution #mathguy suggests - embedding the concept of time in the main table design. This allows you to ask the question "what was this student's address on 1 Jan?", or "who had signature x on 12 Feb?".
If you have to report or execute business logic that reflects the status at any point in time, this design works really well. For instance, if you have to report on how many students lived in a particular address for a given term, you want to know when the records were valid.
But not all applications care about "time" - sometimes, you just want to have an audit table, so you can trace what happened over time in case of anomalies.
In that case, #loztinspace's solution is useful - but in my experience, this rapidly escalates into more work, because those who want to inspect the audit records can or should not get access to a SQL prompt on your production environment.
I have a database with two tables. The first one contains the user_name, user_password, user_email. The second one contains the user_name, user_age, user_description.
When a person finds the user he needs by the user_name, the script looks through the database using the user_name, to give out the information about certain user.
But if the person changes his user_name via preferences, the value changes only in the first table.
Question:
1) Is there a way to make the user_name in the second table change automatically? (To connect them some how)
I am using MySQL (phpMyAdmin).
This is just a simple example. In "real world" I am trying to manage more serious applications that have more tables. Is there an easier way than to create a separate php query for each table?
You could always create an AFTER UPDATE MySQL trigger targeting single rows for this. See the manual. It's probably not easier than using separate PHP queries for the tables, though. You don't need to spell them all out, just map up what needs to be synchronized when, and abstract your code.
However I'd recommend that you use a unique ID field for the user and only store the username in one of the tables -- and refer to the user with the ID under the hood of your code, and in both tables. Not a good idea to use something changeable as a unique identifier in your database design.
I hope someone can help me with this:
I have a simple query combining a list of names and basic details with another table containing more specific information. Some names will necessarily appear more than once and arbitrary distinctions like "John Smith 1" and "John Smith 2" are not an option, so I have been using an autonumber to keep the records distinct.
The problem is that my query is creating two records for each name that appears more than once. For example, there are two clients named 'Sophoan', each with a different id number, and the query has picked up each one twice resulting in four records (in total there are 122 records when there should only be 102). 'Unique values' is set to 'yes'.
I've researched as much as I can and am completely stuck. I've tried to tinker with sql but it always comes back with errors, I presume because there are too many fields in the query.
What am I missing? Or is a query the wrong approach and I need to find another way to combine my tables?
Project in detail: I'm building a database for a charity which has two main activities: social work and training. The database is to record their client information and the results of their interactions with clients (issues they asked for help with, results of training workshops etc.). Some clients will cross over between activities which the organisation wants to track, hence all registered clients go into one list and individual tables spin of that to collect data for each specific activity the client takes part in. This query is supposed to be my solution for combining these tables for data entry by the user.
At present I have the following tables:
AllList (master list of client names and basic contact info; 'Social Work Register' and 'Participant Register' join to this table by
'Name')
Social Work Register (list of social work clients with full details
of each case)
Social Work Follow-up Table (used when staff call social work clients
to see how their issue is progressing; the register has too many
columns to hold this as well; joined to Register by 'Client Name')
Participants Register (list of clients for training and details of
which workshops they were attended and why they were absent if they
missed a session)
Individual workshop tables x14 (each workshop includes a test and
these tables records the clients answers and their score for each
individual test; there will be more than 20 of these when the
database is finished; all joined to the 'Participants Register' by
'Participant Name')
Queries:
Participant Overview Query (links the attendance data from the 'Register' with the grading data from each Workshop to present a read-only
overview; this one seems to work perfectly)
Social Work Query (non-functional; intended to link the 'Client
Register' to the 'AllList' for data entry so that when a new client
is registered it creates a new record in both tables, with the
records matched together)
Participant Query (not yet attempted; as above, intended to link the
'Participant Register' to the 'AllList' for data entry)
BUT I realised that queries can't be used for data entry, so this approach seems to be a dead end. I have had some success with using subforms for data entry but I'm not sure if it's the best way.
So, what I'm basically hoping to achieve is a way to input the same data to two tables simultaneously (for new records) and have the resulting records matched together (for new entries to existing records). But it needs to be possible for the same name to appear more than once as a unique record (e.g. three individuals named John Smith).
[N.B. There are more tables that store secondary information but aren't relevant to the issue as they are not and will not be linked to any other tables.]
I realised that queries can't be used for data entry
Actually, non-complex queries are usually editable as long as the table whose data you want to edit remains 'at the core' of the query. Access applies a number of factors to determine if a query is editable or not.
Most of the time, it's fairly easy to figure out why a query has become non-editable.
Ask yourself the question: if I edit that data, how will Access ensure that exactly that data will be updated, without ambiguity?
If your tables have defined primary keys and these are part of your query, and if there are no grouping, calculated fields (fields that use some function to change or test the value of that field), or complex joins, then the query should remain editable.
You can read more about that here:
How to troubleshoot errors that may occur when you update data in Access queries and in Access forms
Dealing with Non-Updateable Microsoft Access Queries and the Use of Temporary Tables.
So, what I'm basically hoping to achieve is a way to input the same data to two tables simultaneously (for new records) and have the resulting records matched together (for new entries to existing records). But it needs to be possible for the same name to appear more than once as a unique record (e.g. three individuals named John Smith).
This remark actually proves that you have design issues in your database.
A basic tenet of Database Design is to remove redundancy as much as possible. One of the reasons is actually to avoid having to update the same data in multiple places.
Another remark: you are using the Client's name as a Natural Key. Frankly, it is not a very good idea. Generally, you want to make sure that what constitutes a Primary key for a table is reliably unique over time.
Using people's names is generally the wrong choice because:
people change name, for instance in many cultures, women change their family name after they get married.
There could also have been a typo when entering the name and now it can be hard to correct it if that data is used as a Foreign Key all in different tables.
as your database grows, you are likely to end up with some people having the same name, creating conflicts, or forcing the user to make changes to that name so it doesn't create a duplicate.
The best way to enforce uniqueness of records in a table is to use the default AutoNumber ID field proposed by Access when you create a new table. This is called a Surrogate key.
It's not mean to be edited, changed or even displayed to the user. It's sole purpose is to allow the primary key of a table to be unique and non-changing over time, so it can reliably be used as a way to reference a record from one table to another (if a table needs to refer to a particular record, it will contain a field that will hold that ID. That field is called a Foreign Key).
The names you have for your tables are not precise enough: think of each table as an Entity holding related data.
The fact that you have a table called AllList means that its purpose isn't that well-thought of; it sounds like a catch-all rather than a carefully crafted entity.
Instead, if this is your list of clients, then simply call it Client. Each record of that table holds the information for a single client (whether to use plural or singular is up to you, just stick to your choice though, being consistent is hugely important).
Instead of using the client's name as a key, create an ID field, an Autonumber, and set it as Primary Key.
Let's also rename the "Social Work Register", which holds the Client's cases, simply as ClientCase. That relationship seems clear from your description of the table but it's not clear in the table name itself (by the way, I know Access allows spaces in table and field names, but it's a really bad idea to use them if you care at least a little bit about the future of your work).
In that, create a ClientID Number field (a Foreign Key) that will hold the related Client's ID in the ClientCase table.
You don't talk about the relationship between a Client and its Cases. This is another area where you must be clear: how many cases can a single Client have?
At most 1 Case ? (0 or 1 Case)
exactly 1 Case?
at least one Case? (1 or more Cases)
any number of Cases? (0 or more Cases)
Knowing this is important for selecting the right type of JOIN in your queries. It's a crucial part of the design assumptions when building your database.
For instance, in the most general case, assuming that a Client can have 0 or more cases, you could have a report that displays the Client's Name and the number of cases related to them like this:
SELECT Client.Name,
Count(ClientCase.ID) AS CountOfCases
FROM Client
LEFT JOIN ClientCase
ON Client.ID = ClienCase.ClientID
GROUP BY Client.Name
You've described your basic design a bit more, but that's not enough. Show us the actual table structures and the SQL of the queries you tried. From the description you give, it's hard to really understand the actual details of the design and to tell you why it fails and how to make it work.
I am a reasonably competent SQL programmer but my skills are still pretty much in the domain of simple INSERT, SELECT, UPDATE statements with an occasional LIKE etc thrown in. What I am currently trying to do is rather more complex. Here is the scenario.
I have three tables.
Table 1, *users* identifies users via a User ID, uid. Users can have one or more sub accounts
Table 2 *accounts* keeps a record of subaccounts for each user with, amongst other things the columns uid and sid where uid is the one defined in the *users* table.
Table 3, *data* is currently storing some data, in a data column that is being associated with a particular subaccount, sid.
The thing I have just realized is that there is no particular reason to block users from using those data across subaccounts. No problem - I can change my data subset search SQL to work with the uid instead. However, given the frequency of such searches, it seems well worth while simply sticking in a uid column in *data*.
To do that I would need to write some smart SQL that would get uid,sid pairs from the *accounts* table and use that information to update the newly created uid column in the data table. This I have to admit is beyond my knowledge of SQL.
I should mention that the system using these data is now in production and has several 100s of users so the option of just acting like they are not there is not available. Not terribly relevant I think but I should mention that uid and sid are alphanumeric strinsg with both columns being indexed.
I would be most grateful to anyone here who might be able to help out with it.
Mysql can do updates based on joins and based on reading of your schema here's what I'd do...
UPDATE accounts a, data d
set d.uid=a.uid
where a.sid=d.sid
and d.uid is NULL