I am currently working on a PHP/MySQL project for an assignment. In studying the efficient design of databases while working on the assignment I notice that in many cases it is good practice to create a third table when working with only two sets of data.
For example, if we have a table for "Students" and a table for "Addresses" it appears to be a good idea to create a third table i.e. "Student_Addresses" since a student can hypothetically have more than one address (separated parents etc.) and a single address can represent more than one student (siblings).
My question is: How do we go about populating that third table? Is there a way that it is done automatically using primary and/or foreign keys?
I've tried Google and my textbook to understand this but I've gotten nowhere. Links to tutorials or articles would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your help. I hope the question and example are clear.
n:m or 1:m normalization rule
Option 1:
user table
id
f_name
s_name
......
user address table
id
user_id // this should be index only as foreign keys will allow 1:1 only
address line 1
address line 2
address line 3
address_type (home, office ....)
Option 2:
user table
id
f_name
s_name
......
address table
id
address line 1
address line 2
address line 3
address_type (home, office ....)
user_address table
userId
addressId
according to your description option 2 would be the right solution. After adding the data to user table and address table then you need to add the data to user_address table manually. Some Object relational mapper (ORM) may do add the data to the third table automatically but you need to define the relations. check http://docs.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-orm/en/latest/reference/association-mapping.html.
http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/linux/sql/ch02_02.htm
http://www.keithjbrown.co.uk/vworks/mysql/mysql_p7.php
You can save the data in the third table using triggers when the data is inserted/updated/deleted in your base tables. You can learn more about triggers at
mySQL Triggers
However in your case it would be better if you could write the logic at the application/code level to make an entry in the third table. You can set up foreign key relationships to this table from your base tables so that the data remains consistent.
There is no native method in MySQL to populate Student_Addresses in your situation - you have to take care of entering data (connections) by yourself, but you can use - for example - transactions - see answers in this topic: SQL Server: Is it possible to insert into two tables at the same time?
For taking care of connections consistency - in Student_Addresses make not-null fields for relations to ID from Student and ID from Address, make both of these field as unique key together and use ON UPDATE CASCADE and ON DELETE CASCADE. This will take care of removing records from junction table when removing records from any of two other tables and also won't allow you to add same address to the same student twice.
I don't think data will be populated automatically rather it's responsibility of user to insert data.
I am note sure about PHP but using Hibernate and Java this can be done seemlessly. Since data of Students and addresses could be coming through some web application Hibernate can map java objects to records in table and also populate relationship table.
Related
I have multiple tables in a Laravel app with 1-to-1 relationship such as users , users_settings , user_financial
And some 1-to-many relationships such as users_histories
My questions are:
1. Should I always include incremental id at the first?
for example is the id necessary in the Table #2 below?
Table 1:
id (primary,increments) , name, email, password
Table 2:
id (primary,increments), user_id, something_extra
^ why does every guide include this? // e.g. https://appdividend.com/2017/10/12/laravel-one-to-one-eloquent-relationships/
Can't I just use user_id as primary key and skip the incremental key? because I want to auto insert it on table 2 as soon as data is inserted in table 1.
2. How should I name 1-to-1 and 1-to-many tables in Laravel? `
I searched but didn't find any naming convention for different type of relationships...
Currently I do:
users table with primary key id is the base.
1-to-1: users_settings with foreign key user_id
1-to-many: users_histories foreign_key user_id
many-to-many: users_groups foreign_key user_id
should the first two tables be named settings/setting , histories/history instead? sorry I'm a little confused here.
I actually asked a similar question around 2 days ago. Its up to you but I'd say yes. In my case if I don't auto_increment all my ids in the related tables, data won't be associated with the correct user. However, there is an argument for saying auto_increment columns should not be used in this case, but they are useful for other things. According to some, the relationships might not be as meaningful so it'd be up to you and down to the specifics of you data tables for how meaningful the relationship will be. Regardless, you should research more into the advantages of auto_incrementing all your ids in related tables, as well as possible disadvantages before deciding what you want to do. Either way is fine, but they offer different advantages and disadvantages- which you'll need to compare and what works best for your specific case.
This is a well debated topic about the primary key. IMHO, No, you shouldn't. Every column in database should have a purpose. Following this, for your example, I agree that the auto_increment id is redundant and this is simply because it doesn't have a purpose. The second table is still uniquely describing the user so that the primary key should be the user_id.
Beside the above, there is another principle for me to decide whether I need the auto_increment id: whether I can see a table as an entity. For example, user is clearly an entity, but a relationship is not (in most cases), i.e., composite key can serves the purpose. But when an relationship table is extended to have more attributes and it starts to make sense for it to have an auto_increment id.
I don't have much experience on Laravel, but the naming for a database table should not be dictated by a framework. Comparing history and user_history, what a new DBA or developer expect from the two names without looking its data? user_history describes the table more precisely
For example, I have Users and Projects tables.
Multiple users can be members of a project. How do I insert multiple users into the members column of the Projects table?
Do I separate by comma like: "John, Alex, Hanna"?
I'm a beginner in MySQL, sorry if this is a dumb question. Thanks!
You defiantly need another table.
It should look like this
Name: UserProjects
Field: UserId
Field ProjectID
Those 2 fields should be primary keys (dual primary id). If you want to go down the route of 'soft deletes' then add a status column which you'll set to 0 if you delete it. Also look up insert on update for mysql.
Trust me this is the way to go. Using a delimiter field or something will only give you problems later down the line.
I have this MySQL table, where row contact_id is unique for each user_id.
history:
- hist_id: int(11) auto_increment primary key
- user_id: int(11)
- contact_id: int(11)
- name: varchar(50)
- phone: varchar(30)
From time to time, server will receive a new list of contacts for a specific user_id and need to update this table, inserting, deleting or updating data that is different from previous information.
For example, currenty data is:
So, server receive this data:
And the new data is:
As you can see, first row (John) was updated, second row (Mary) was deleted and some other row (Jeniffer) was included.
Today what I am doing is deleting all rows with a specific user_id, and inserting the new data. But the autoincrement field (hist_id) is getting bigger and bigger...
Obs: Table have about 80 thousand records, and this update will occur 30 times a day or more.
I have some (related) questions:
1. In this scenario, do you think deleting all records from a specific user_id and inserting updated data is a good approach?
2. What about removing the autoincrement field? I don't need it, but I think it is not a good idea to have a table without a primary key.
3. Or maybe the better approach is to loop new data, selecting each user_id / contact_id for comparing values to update?
PS. For better approach I mean the most efficient way
Thank you so much for any help!
In this scenario, do you think deleting all records from a specific user_id and inserting updated data is a good approach?
Short Answer
No. You should be taking advantage of 'upsert' which is short for 'insert on duplicate key update'. What this means is that if they key pair you're inserting already exists, update the specified columns with the specified data. You then shorten your logic and reduce increments. Here's an example, using your table structure that should work. This is also assuming that you have set the user_id and contact_id fields to unique.
INSERT INTO history (user_id, contact_id, name, phone)
VALUES
(1, 23, 'James Jr.', '(619)-543-6222')
ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE
name=VALUES(name),
phone=VALUES(phone);
This query should retain the contact_id but overwrite the prexisting data with the new data.
What about removing the autoincrement field? I don't need it, but I think it is not a good idea to have a table without a primary key.
Primary keys do not imply auto incremented values. I could have a varchar field as the primary key containing names of fruits and vegetables. Is this optimized for performance? Probably not. There many situations that might call for auto increment and there are definite reasons to avoid it. It all depends on how you wish to access the data and how this can impact future expansion. In your situation, I would start over on the table structure and re-think how you wish to store and access the data. Do you want to write more logic to control the data OR do you want the data to flow naturally by itself? You've made a history table that is functioning more like a hybrid many-to-one crosswalk at first glance. Without looking at the remaining table structure, I can't necessarily say on a whim that it's not a good idea. What I can say is that I would do this a bit differently. I will answer this more specifically in the next question.
Or maybe the better approach is to loop new data, selecting each user_id / contact_id for comparing values to update?
I would avoid looping through the data in order to update it. That is a job for SQL and it does this job well. Sometimes, we might find ourselves in a situation where we must do this to either extract data in a specific format or to repair data in some way however, avoid doing this for inserting or updating the data. It can negatively impact performance and you will likely paint yourself into a corner.
Back to what I said toward the end of your second question which will help you see what I am talking about. I am going to assume that user_id is a primary key that is auto-incremented in your user table. I will do some guestimation here and show you an example of how you can redesign your user, contact and phone number structure. The following is a quick model I threw together that shows the foreign key relationship between the tables.
Note: The column names and overall data arrangement could be done differently but I did this quickly to give you a decent example of a normalized database structure. All of the foreign keys have a structural layout which separates your data in a way that enables you to control the flow of data as it enters and leaves your system. Here's the screenshot of the database model I threw together using MySQL Workbench.
(source: xonos.net)
Here's the SQL so that you can look at it more closely.
You'll notice that the "person" table is extracted from users but shares data with contacts. This enables you to store all "people" in one place, all "users" in another and all "contacts" in another. Now, why would we do this? The number one reason can be explained in two scenarios.
1.) Say we have someone, in this example I'll call him "Jim Bean". "Jim Bean" works for the company, so he is a user of the system. But, "Jim Bean" happens to own a side business and does contact work for the company at the same time. So, he is both a contact and a user of the system. In a more "flat table" environment, we would have two records for Jim Bean that contain the same data which could become outdated or incorrect, quickly.
2.) Let's say that Jim did some bad things and the company wants nothing to do with him anymore. They don't want any record of him - as if he never existed. All that we have to do is delete Jim Bean from the Person table. That's it. Since the foreign relationship has "CASCADE" on update/delete - this automatically propagate and clears out the other tables related to him.
I highly recommend that you do some reading on normalized data structure. It has saved me many hours once I got the hang of it and I will never go back.
I've just started exploring SQL databases, but I've run into an issue with how I store 'compound' structures in an existing table (if that's even the right way to go about it). For example, let's say that I have a database table with rows of users, where each user has a Unique ID, a hashed password, an email address, a phone number, etc.
Simple enough. But, then I want to allow each user to create and store an array of posts. Each post would have a post id, content, date, and various other metadata. If this was C++, I would probably have an array/vector of Posts as a member of the User class, and than I'd store an array/vector of User objects somewhere. Is it possible to store a table within a table in SQL, so that each user has access to their own individual table of posts?
Or, would it be better to create two separate tables (a users table, and a posts table), using some common element (like user ID or user name) to retrieve user-specific data from the posts table, and vice-versa?
I'm trying to understand how to implement a complex database that might be able to manage a large number of users, with user-specific sets of data like posts, messages, etc. So what might be a good approach to take going forward?
As you already mentioned, in relational data model, you can define two tables like below:
table 1 : Users
user_id user_name
----------- ------------------
1 'Tom'
2 'John'
table 2 : Posts
post_id user_id content post_date
-------- ---------- ------------------- ---------------------
1 1 'Hello, I am Tom.' 2014-04-02 14:14
2 1 'good bye' 2014-04-02 20:10
3 2 'I am John' 2014-04-02 22:22
You can read an introductory article here:
Relational_model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_model
Hope this helps.
You don't store table within table. You can store data in multiple tables and assign primary key for one table and foreign key for another table.
Read about Primary key, Foreign key and Relational Model.
Once your these concepts are cleared read about Database Normalization
You don't store tables within tables. As your third paragraph suggests, the strategy is to use some common key to "relate" table rows to each other.
The "unique ID" you describe is usually called a "primary key". You might have a table of users with a primary key that auto-increments each time you add a record. A function would be available to you so that after inserting, you could determine what the primary key is of the record you just added, so that you can add records to other tables that refer to the primary key of the users table.
You should probably read about Database normalization ant the relational model, specifically about the differences between Normal Forms.
With regard to selection of a field to relate posts to users, I suggest you don't use the username, and instead use some internal reference that isn't visible to the users. While your application might not allow it now, if you wanted to offer users the opportunity to change their username, tying internal database structure to something based on user input would only cause problems in the future.
I'm creating a game in actionscript that requires the use of an external database to store user details and scores.
This database will contain multiple tables, currently there are two.
My first table contains the headers - ID, email, username, password.
My second table contains the headers - ID, lvl1Score, lvl2Score, lvl3Score.
In my game, when a new user is created it creates an entry in the first table with the ID auto-incrementing.
My question is - Is there anyway to automatically create an entry in my second table with its default values and the same ID when I add to my first table?
I've read about joins, but everything i've read just talks about looking up data over multiple tables.
Also, is my table structure correct in the sence that the ID value can be used using the JOIN keywork to look up an entry from both tables.
I would suggest you to go for triggers.
create or replace trigger trigger_name after
insert on table1
for each row
begin
insert into table2 values(new.id,"value for lvl2score","value for lvl3score");
end
Something like this.
If the tables truly have a one-to-one relation, I would recommend that you simply make one table having all the fields.
Or did you mean this should store multiple scores for each individual user? In this case, you should not insert a default record for the user. Instead, the score.ID field should instead reference user.ID and allow duplicates.
I suggest you to use triggers and for more flexibility create a many-many relationship between "user" and "level", so you will end up with 3 tables:
user
level
user_level (this will contain the foreign keys: user_id, level_id)