"Has A" or "Belongs To" relationship or something else? - php

I'm not sure why I'm struggling with this it seems like a very simple concept. So my struggling makes me think that perhaps my data modeling needs another component...
I'm using Laravel 5 and am trying to define some model relationships. BelongsTo,HasA, etc. Before I can write the code, I need to at least conceptually understand what type of relationship I'm creating.
I have an application to where users can send people referral links, if a person clicks on the link and signs up, their user record makes note of the code that referred them. This way I can trace back and see who referred a particular user. But a referral is NOT necessary to sign up
Tables:
USERS
+----+-------------+
| id | referral_id |
+----+-------------+
| 1 | 1 |
| 2 | null |
| 3 | 2 |
+----+-------------+
REFERRALS
+----+---------------+---------+
| id | referral_code | user_id |
+----+---------------+---------+
| 1 | 12345 | 2 |
| 2 | 54321 | 2 |
| 3 | 99999 | 2 |
+----+---------------+---------+
USERS.REFERRAL_ID references REFERRALS.ID
and
REFERRALS.USER_ID references USERS.ID
But what kind of relationships are these?
The only one that seems obvious to me is that REFERRALS.USER_ID belongs to USERS.
But what about USERS.REFERRAL_ID, saying it belongsTo Referrals doesn't feel right, as that record isn't required and I don't feel like it 'owns' the user by any means. Saying it hasA referral doesn't feel correct either, as again the user doesn't own or even require the referral.
I guess what is confusing me is that REFERRALS is an optional entity.
How should I conceptualize the relationship between USERS.REFERRAL_ID and REFERRALS.ID?
Is it bad to have this sort of "circular reference"? Would I be better off creating a pivot table?

No need to add any reference to the Referrals table in the User table, you already have that relation defined in the referral table ( user_id column )
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
The Relationship is
USER has many REFERRALS
REFERRAL belongs to USER ( inviter )
REFERRAL belongs to USER ( invitee )
Modify your REFERRALS table
+----+---------------+---------+------------+
| id | referral_code | user_id | invitee_id |
+----+---------------+---------+------------+
| 1 | 12345 | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 54321 | 1 | null |
| 3 | 99999 | 3 | 1 |
+----+---------------+---------+------------+
user_id is the id of the user that sends the invitation
invitee_id is the id of the user that accepts and registers
invitee_id column is nullable() and will contain the id of the invitee from users table when they join.
Think of it as a JOIN table between inviter and invitee.

Related

How to identify which table to delete a record when data coming from two tables?

I have two tables where some same kind of information kept. One table has approved information and other one contains pending(waiting for approval) data. I fetch data from both table and display in a same view. So user will see data from both the tables. User can delete those records. But when deleting I've a trouble with finding out which table I should delete.
Assume, table1(Approved info), table2(Pending info)
table1
id | name | description | creator |
-----------------------------------
10 | test1 | N/A | 100 |
11 | test2 | N/A | 100 |
12 | test3 | N/A | 101 |
13 | test4 | N/A | 200 |
table2
id | name | description | creator |
-----------------------------------
10 | test1 | N/A | 105 |
11 | test2 | N/A | 103 |
12 | test3 | N/A | 106 |
13 | test4 | N/A | 202 |
table1 has a record with id of 10; and table2 has a record with id of 10 in that table. Id is the primary key of both tables. Both record will show to user. Let's say user wants to delete the record related to id 12 came from table2. So I want to delete that record from table2. But how can I figure out which table to delete that record. Because I can't use id to figure out the table. I have tried using some kind of data attribute attached with
data coming from table2 to differentiate them. But anyone can change them by inspecting it. So what is the proper way for solve this issue?
On any case, on any system, makes sense to have two to tables with same columns. That should be one of the firsts rules of database design. What's more, you discovered yourself how hard is to maintain a design like that. I see this on legacy systems developed with zero love to the code. In the future this will turn into a snowball. You should change it as soon as possible.
status column
The status of and entity or resource, is classic requirement, usually implemented with one little column which called : status, flag, mode, etc. In your case, it could have these values (#BhaumikPandhi comment):
pending/approved/rejected
id | name | description | creator | status |
--------------------------------------------
10 | test1 | N/A | 100 | pending|
If you are worried to the database optimization, you could use a tinyint with these equivalence in your documentation:
1 = pending
2 = approved
3 = rejected
status table
You could keep your first table called record
id | name | description | creator |
And create another one called record_status with 2 columns, in which record_id is a FK of record table
record_id | status |
Anyway, the status column is the most easy a classic approach to your requirement.

Symfony - Doctrine relationship - Returns relational model with null values

First things first. I am totally new on Symfony, and I am trying to solve an issue but I don't know how. So, if my questions seem to weird to you, then please help me by explaining where I am wrong and thank you in advance.
So, in my DB I have the following tables:
payments, with columns: id, merchant_sevice_id, customer_id, status, type, created_at, amount_amount, amount_currency. payment_method_payment_method_type, payment_method_payment_method_id, vat and failed_reason.
and
merchant_services with columns: id, payment_institution_id, account_id, name, capacity, capabilities, created_at, mid, status, and blocked_bins_id.
The two tables are connected with a manyToOne relationship. So, many payments could belong to one Merchant
Now, the problem is when I try to get one Payment and check the relationship with Merchants. The fields of the Merchant are all nulled, while in DB I have values.
So a given record in payments table looks like that:
| id | merchant_service_id | customer_id | status | type | created_at | amount_amount | amount_currency | payment_method_payment_method_type | payment_method_payment_method_id | vat | failed_reason |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0fede82a-b898-4287-83e3-8f7d28d576db | 548d36d9-f1e6-4854-b513-1559b2499b45 | 237369c4-feed-4e24-964a-638938c7940c | failed | SALE | 2018-06-15 07:36:28 | 100 | GBP | card | f35f78c4-2da7-432a-ace5-c0829db448af | 5 | |
And the related record in merchants is like that:
| id | payment_institution_id | account_id | name | capacity | capabilities | created_at | mid | status | blocked_bins_id |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 548d36d9-f1e6-4854-b513-1559b2499b45 | c7a02b53-6c8b-4aa9-b1af-1c5b4978d844 | 4d239c0f-1fa0-4d70-88b4-95b6f05e7bf5 | Test | 0 | ["AUTH"] | 2018-06-06 06:36:15 | 53 | active | e3d6a222-68cd-468c-a78a-b0da8ff0caf9 |
Then, the output of my query in the DB seems like that:
As you could see, the values of the merchantService are all null (except the ID).
So the question is, what it could make this problem? Could be a serializer? Is that a kind of Symfony issue? Actually I am looking for a hint on where to look for solution of that issue.
Again sorry if my question is too weired, but I am really blocked and I don't know how to continue.
As iainn indicated in his comment Doctrine relationships are by default lazy-loaded (you can change that by using fetch="EAGER" in the ManyToOne annotation). Indeed, you can easily observe that in your screenshot, as the merchantService object has property __isInitialized__ set to false. That means it is a proxy object of MerchantService class.

Check if value exists in MySQL table and then select [Laravel 5]

Here is my pivot table project_group:
+-----+----------+------------+----------+---------+
| ids | group_id | project_id | admin_id | user_id |
+-----+----------+------------+----------+---------+
| 4 | 115 | 1 | 1 | [3,4,5] |
| 5 | 115 | 2 | 1 | [5,2,1] |
| 6 | 115 | 3 | 1 | [1,3,6] |
This table represent group linked to the projects....user_id is which users can see projects/group... Is there any way to display correct projects/group only to the users defined in user_id?
Also content in user_id field can be changed....
The best way to handle this would be to first normalize your database. Storing comma separated lists in a cell is allowed, but generally bad practice, as explained in this question.
If you can have multiple users per project, you should have a linking table with a column for project and a column for user, like this:
project_users:
| project_id | user_id |
and you can make (project_id, user_id) a composite primary key.
That way, you can select the users for a project (say, project 1) like this:
SELECT user_id
FROM project_users
WHERE project_id = 1;
Once you have these, you can display the project data only to users whose id is returned in the above list.
I have built an SQL Fiddle that helps demonstrate this visually, if it helps.
It is good to note that this proper normalization gives the opportunity to a lot of useful data as well, as it becomes easier to search for users by project, but also you can search for project information based on a user.

PHP & MySQL Tagging system logic

I am a beginner developer and i would like to ask some advice.
I am currently building a platform where people will be allowed to upload images and tag them.
I was reading through some articles with the following structure to store tags
Storing Logic 1
| photo_id | name | tags |
| 1 | some photo | flower, sun. island, beach |
| 2 | some photo2 | hawaii, travle. surf |
Lot of people said this is not such a good idea
So my logic.
I was reading around about Many-to-Many relations and i came up with this logic
Tags table
| tag_id | name |
-----------------------
| 1 | flower |
| 2 | hawaii |
| 3 | surfing |
| 4 | island |
| 5 | travel |
Photos table
| photo_id | name |
---------------------------
| 1 | some photo |
| 2 | some photo2 |
Relation table
| tag_id | photo_id |
---------------------------
| 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 5 | 2 |
I have chosen to use Laravel framework to make the development easier
But my problem is with logic 2 and what i am scared of is it will generate a huge load time.
Because there will be no default just user based tags i thought about the following logic.
User uploads the image with tags, before image is saved, check if the actual tags exsit if not save it, than return tags_id and save it to the relation table with photo_id
So i have 2 questions
Which logic is better and why?
If logic 2, is it good the way i thought it up? and should i worry about the load time in the future when lot of tags will be there?
thank you
I would go with the second one. I wouldn't worry about load times. You can easily get the categories with joins.
However, you should add an id column on the relation table so that multiple images can share a category.
In your second example, your relation table should have indexes, so that when you look for all the tags based on a specific photo_id, the answer will be rapidly returned.
See also Foreign Keys
In your relation table, tag_id is a foreign key into your tag table and photo_id is a foreign key into the photo table. Tags may have a relationship to more than 1 photo and a photo may have a relationship to more than one tag.
Similarly the names of your tags (and photos) should also be indexed for rapid searching.

Database Schema suggestions please

I have a scenario and i'm confused about how i can go about designing the database schema for it.
In my software (php)
there are companies and applications.
companies need to have licenses to access applications.
now the fields (for form while purchasing licenses) for each application is different.
for ex:
for application1:
fields are:
no of users
no of groups
for application2:
no of users
for application3:
number of hours of usage
Prices are based on these fields.
Now i need to design schema for this so that on one page company can manage licenses for all applications.
How can i make this schema generic?
Please help.
Thanks.
You can go with this type of structure
select * from applicationMaster
| APPID | APPNAME |
------------------------
| 1 | Application1 |
| 2 | Application2 |
ApplicationMaster will go with main Application related details which won't be repeated such Name, date etc.
Query 2:
select * from applicationField
| FIELDID | APPID | FIELDNAME |
---------------------------------
| 1 | 1 | NoOfUsers |
| 2 | 1 | NoOfGroups |
| 3 | 2 | NoHourusage |
ApplicationField can adjust any number of field for a particular appId.
So AppId 1 has 2 fields NoofUsers and NoOfGroups. It is also capable to adjust newer fields for a particular app if you want.
Query 3:
ApplicationValue will have the values for every license aplication so it will have compId which represents which company has applied using fieldId which refers to applicationField table we can get for which app values are stored.
select * from applicationValue
| ID | COMPID | FIELDID | FIELDVALUE |
--------------------------------------
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 50 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 150 |
| 3 | 2 | 3 | 350 |
| 4 | 3 | 1 | 450 |
| 5 | 3 | 2 | 50 |
applicationPriceMaster stores the price package for each application. There could be multiple package for a application.
select * from applicationPriceMaster
| APPPACKAGE | APPID | TOTALPRICE |
-----------------------------------
| 1 | 1 | 50 |
| 2 | 1 | 100 |
For each application package its details will posted in this table.
select * from applicationPriceDetail
| APPPACKAGE | FIELDID | QUANT |
--------------------------------
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | 10 |
| 2 | 2 | 1 |
NOTE Please check the structure as it is now too complex and check what type of queries you would be running on these table and its performance.
select apm.APPPACKAGE, TOTALPRICE from
applicationPriceMaster apm
inner join
(select APPPACKAGE from applicationPriceDetail
where FIELDID=1 and QUANT=1)a
on apm.APPPACKAGE = a.APPPACKAGE
inner join
(select APPPACKAGE from applicationPriceDetail
where FIELDID=2 and QUANT=1)b
on
a.APPPACKAGE=b.APPPACKAGE
SQL FIDDLE:
| APPPACKAGE | TOTALPRICE |
---------------------------
| 1 | 50 |
For single filter you have to use this query, so you have to increase number of inner query with the number of inner filter.
select apm.APPPACKAGE, TOTALPRICE from
applicationPriceMaster apm
inner join
(select APPPACKAGE from applicationPriceDetail
where FIELDID=1 and QUANT=1)a
on apm.APPPACKAGE = a.APPPACKAGE
NOTE-This query is quite complex and will only work if the values are same as mentioned in the packagedetail table and will work only if the values are 2 filter you have to remove 1 inner join if there is only 1 filter. So I suggest you to reconsider before using this approach.
What you have there, could be easily mapped to Classes in an OO language (like PHP). You have an Abstract License, and then 3 Subclasses (ApplicationByUsersAndGroups, etc). Then, mapping to a Relational database is a very common problem, here is a nice article about it: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-mapping-to-rdb/
It has 3 options, it depends on the way you want to structure your application which one you should use. I recommend reading it, it is not that long.
One way is
Table LICENCES:
LICENSE_ID ==> UNIQUE IDENTIFIER
COMPANY_ID ==> references table COMPANIES
APPLICATION_ID ==> references table APPLICATIONS
LICENCE_TYPE ==> either of "BY_GROUPS_AND_USERS", "BY_USERS", "BY_HOURS"
LICENCE_BODY_ID ==> ID of specific body table
[...]
Table LIC_TYPE_BY_GROUPS_AND_USERS:
LICENCE_BODY_ID ==> body identifier
NO_GROUP
NO_USERS
[...]
Table LIC_TYPE_BY_USERS:
LICENCE_BODY_ID ==> body identifier
NO_USERS
[...]
This way, your intention is clear. Even after long time comming back, you will know in no time how things are organized, which fields are used in which case...
how about a table structured this way:
LicenseId int PK
CompanyId Int PK
AppId Int PK
LicenseType int
NumberOfUsers int
NumberOfGroups int
NumberOfHours int
Price Money
Depending on LicenseType, you will use different column in your business logic,
you might need to add CompanyID and/or AppID, that depends how you going to structure those tables as well as relation ships between company/app/license.
Some questions to think about:
Can one company have different License Types for same App?
Can one company have different Apps?
Dont complicate things, if the number of users is unlimited then set it to 999999 or some other max value.
This keeps the license check logic (which will run every time a user logs in ) simple and the same for all applications.
You will need extra logic in the licenses maintenance application, but this should also be pretty simple:
if the cost_per_user is = 0 then set no_of_users = 99999
Again you end up with the same licensing screen and logic for all your applications.

Categories