I am a new php and mysql programmer. I am handling quite large amount of data, and in future it will grow slowly, thus I am using hash table. I have couple of questions:
Does mysql have hash table built in function? If yes, how to use that?
After couple of days doing research about hash table. I briefly know what hash table is but I just could not understand how to start creating one. I saw a lot of hash table codes over the internet. Most of them, in the first step in to create a hashtable class. Does it mean, they store the hash table value in the temporary table instead of insert into mysql database?
For questions 3,4 & 5, example scenario:
User can collect items in the website. I would like to use hash table to insert and retrieve the items that the user collected.
[Important] What are the possible mysql database structure looks like?
e.g, create items and users table
in items table have: item_id, item_name, and item_hash_value
in users table have: user_id, username, item_name, item_hash_value
I am not sure if the users table is correct?
[Important] What are the steps of creating hash table in php and mysql?
(If there is any sample code would be great :))
[Important] How to insert and retrieve data from hash table? I am talking about php and mysql, so I hope the answers can be like: "you can use mysql query i.e SELECT * from blabla..."
(sorry about the italics, underscores can trigger them but I can't find a good way to disable that in the middle of a paragraph. Ignore the italics, I didn't mean to put them there)
You don't need to worry about using a hashtable with MySQL. If you intend to have a large number of items in memory while you operate on them a hashtable is a good data structure to use since it can find things much faster than a simple list.
But at the database level, you don't need to worry about the hashtable. Figuring out how to best hold and access records is MySQL's job, so as long as you give it the correct information it will be happy.
Database Structure
items table would be: item_id, item_name
Primary key is item_id
users table would be: user_id, username
Primary key is user_id
user_items table would be: user_id, item_id
Primary key is the combination of user_id and item_id
Index on item_id
Each item gets one (and only one) entry in the items table. Each user gets one (and only one) entry in the users table. When a user selects an item, it goes in the user items table. Example:
Users:
1 | Bob
2 | Alice
3 | Robert
Items
1 | Headphones
2 | Computer
3 | Beanie Baby
So if Bob has selected the headphones and Robert has selected the computer and beanie baby, the user_items table would look like this:
User_items (user_id, item_id)
1 | 1 (This shows Bob (user 1) selected headphones (item 1))
3 | 2 (This shows Robert (user 3) selected a computer (item 2))
3 | 3 (This shows Robert (user 3) selected a beanie baby (item 3))
Since the user_id and item_id on the users and items tables are primary keys, MySQL will let you access them very fast, just like a hashmap. On the user_items table having both the user_id and item_id in the primary key means you won't have duplicates and you should be able to get fast access (an index on item_id wouldn't hurt).
Example Queries
With this setup, it's really easy to find out what you want to know. Here are some examples:
Who has selected item 2?
SELECT users.user_id, users.user_name FROM users, user_items
WHERE users.user_id = user_items.user_id AND user_items.item_id = 2
How many things has Robert selected?
SELECT COUNT(user_items.item_id) FROM user_items, users
WHERE users.user_id = user_items.user_id AND users.user_name = 'Robert'
I want a list of each user and what they've selected, ordered by the user name
SELECT user.user_name, item.item_name FROM users, items, user_items
WHERE users.user_id = user_items.user_id AND items.item_id = user_items.item_id
ORDER BY user_name, item_name
There are many guides to SQL on the internet, such as the W3C's tutorial.
1) Hashtables do exist in MySQL but are used to keep internal track of keys on tables.
2) Hashtables work by hashing a data cell to create a number of different keys that separate the data by these keys making it easier to search through. The hashtable is used to find what the key is that should be used to bring up the correct list to search through.
Example, you have 100 items, searching 100 items in a row takes 10 seconds. If you know that they can be separated by type of item and break it up into 25 items of t-shirts, 25 items of clocks, items rows of watches, and items rows of shoes. Then when you need to find a t-shirt, you can only have to search through the 25 items of t-shirts which then takes 2.5 seconds.
3) Not sure what your question means, a MySQL database is a binary file that contains all the rows in the database.
4) As in #2 you would need to decide what you want your key to be.
5) #2 you need to know what your key is.
If you think a hash table is the right way to store your data, you may want to use a key-value database like CouchDB instead of MySQL. They show you how to get started with PHP.
I am a new php and mysql programmer. I am handling quite large amount of data, and in future it will grow slowly, thus I am using hash table.
lookin at your original purpose, use "memcache" instead, it is the most scalable solution while offers the minimal changes in your code, you can scale up the memcache servers as your data go larger and larger.
Related
For a forum, i want to enable the users to send messages to each other to.
In order to do this, I made a table called Contacts, within this table I have 5 collumns: The user_id, a collumn for storing Friends, one for storing Family, one for storing Business and one for other contacts. These last four should all contain an array, which holds the user_id's of that type of contact. The reason I chose for this design is because I don't want to type an awful lot or limit the users on the amount of friends, like friend1, friend2 etc.
My question is: Is this correct how I do it? If not, what should be improved?And what type of MYSQL field should Friends, Family, Business and Other be?
What you should do instead of that is have a map table between your Contacts table and any related tables (User, Friends, Family, Business). The purpose would purely be to create a link between your Contact and your User(s) etc, without having to do what you're talking about and use arrays compacted into a varchar etc field.
Structured data approach gives you a much more flexible application.
E.g. UserContacts table purely contains its own primary key (id), a foreign key for Users and a foreign key for Contacts. You do this for each type, allowing you to easily insert, or modify maps between any number of users and contacts whenever you like without potentially damaging other data - and without complicated logic to break up something like this: 1,2,3,4,5 or 1|2|3|4|5:
id, user_id, contact_id
So then when you come to use this structure, you'll do something like this:
SELECT
Contacts.*
-- , Users.* -- if you want the user information
FROM UserContacts
LEFT JOIN Contacts ON (UserContacts.contact_id = Contacts.id)
LEFT JOIN Users ON (Users.id = UserContacts.user_id)
Use the serialize() and unserialize() functions.
See this question on how to store an array in MySQL:
Save PHP array to MySQL?
However, it's not recommended that you do this. I would make a separate table that stores all the 'connections' between two users. For example, if say John adds Ali, there would be a record dedicated to Ali and John. To find the friends of a user, simply query the records that have Ali or John in them. But that's my personal way of doing things.
I recommend that you query the users friends using PHP/MySQL all the time you need them. This could save considerable amount of space and would not take up so much speed.
serialize the array before storing and unserialize after retrieving.
$friends_for_db = serialize($friends_array);
// store $friends_for_db into db
And for retrieving:
// read $friends_for_db from db
$friends_array = unserialize($friends_for_db);
However, it should be wiser to follow other answers about setting up an appropriate many-to-many design.
Nevertheless, I needed this kind of design for a minor situation which a complete solution would not be necessary (e.g. easy storing/retrieving some multi-select list value which I'll never query nor use, other than displaying to user)
Description:
I am building a rating system with mysql/php. I am confused as to how I would set up the database.
Here is my article setup:
Article table:
id | user_id | title | body | date_posted
This is my assumed rating table:
Rating table:
id | article_id | score | ? user_id ?
Problem:
I don't know if I should place the user_id in the rating table. My plan is to use a query like this:
SELECT ... WHERE user_id = 1 AND article_id = 10
But I know that it's redundant data as it stores the user_id twice. Should I figure out a JOIN on the tables or is the structure good as is?
It depends. I'm assuming that the articles are unique to individual users? In that case, I could retain the user_id in your rating table and then just alter your query to:
SELECT ... WHERE article_id = 10
or
SELECT ... WHERE user_id = 1
Depending on what info you're trying to pull.
You're not "storing the user_id twice" so much as using the user_id to link the article to unique data associated to the user in another table. You're taking the right approach, except in your query.
I don't see anything wrong with this approach. The user id being stored twice is not particularly relevant since one is regarding a rating entry and the other, i assume, is related to the article owner.
The benefit of this way is you can prevent multiple scores being recorded for each user by making article_id and user_id unique and use replace into to manage scoring.
There are many things to elaborate on this depending on whether or not this rating system needs to be intelligent to prevent gaming, etc. How large the user base is, etc.
I bet for any normal person, this setup would not be detrimental to even a relatively large scale system.
... semi irrelevant:
Just FYI, depending on the importance and gaming aspects of this score, you could use STDDEV() to fetch an average factoring the standard deviation on the score column...
SELECT STDDEV(`score`) FROM `rating` WHERE `article_id` = {article_id}
That would factor outliers supposing you cared whether or not it looked like people were ganging up on a particular article to shoot it down or praise it without valid cause.
you should not, due to 3rd normal form, you need to keep the independence.
"The third normal form (3NF) is a normal form used in database normalization. 3NF was originally defined by E.F. Codd in 1971.[1] Codd's definition states that a table is in 3NF if and only if both of the following conditions hold:
The relation R (table) is in second normal form (2NF)
Every non-prime attribute of R is non-transitively dependent (i.e. directly dependent) on every superkey of R."
Source here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_normal_form
First normal Form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_normal_form
Second normal Form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_normal_form
you should take a look to normalization and E/R model it will help you a lot.
normalization in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
This is hopefully a quick php question...
I have stored a number of id's in a field on a user table like '1,2,3'. I now want to query another table against those numbers. I think my brain has gone to mush this morning because can't seem to get it right...
Could 'IN' be used in the query?
Update -
Realised I didn't explain my self well enough...
I have two tables, one for users (id, username, password, products) The 'products' field has comma separated id's in which related to another table which holds product information.
I am basically trying to filter out what a user can see, via a query to the database with that users privileges.
You should fix your database schema; then, querying will be obvious and efficient.
Every column in your database should contain atomic values. If you've stored multiple values in a single column, it means you should have created a table with a one-to-many relation.
CREATE TABLE user_whatever (user_id int, whatever_id int)
...with one row per item related to the user. To query another table against those numbers, you simply JOIN this new table in the query.
You may be better off using a join, hard to tell from your question what sort of data you're working with.
Join's would be far more efficient with large amounts of data.
without knowing your database structure it's impossible to help further
SELECT column_names
FROM table_one
INNER JOIN table_two
ON table_one.column_name=table_two.column_name
is the basic syntax.
You can use IN in SQL without any problem, but you will need to convert the PHP array to a compatible list for example using the implode(separator,array) function...
[Update] Seeing the question update: The technique you chose for saving the "products" is not very good and WILL cause you problems in the future. the standard solution for storing these values is creating an additional table (userid,productid) and the primary key is both fields in it you create multiple rows for each user/product permission.
To actually use the specific solution you created you will need to run an SQL getting the values from the table, and then using a SECOND SQL use the WHERE IN $ids to actually get the data (as far as I know you can not use the IN on a string result like this (no such thing as EVAL in SQL)
Like everybody said, you should use atomic values. But since everybody already explained that, I'm only going to clarify in detail what you should do.
Use a table for users, which contains the id, username and password, but without product
id - username - password
1 - mike - XXXX
2 - joe - XXXX
Then you have your products table
id - name - price
1 - Aluminum bat - 19.99
2 - Scattergun - 39.99
3 - BONK (with isotopes) - 14.99
Now, you introdouce a third table, which represents what users have bought.
user - product
1 - 2
1 - 3
2 - 1
Now, if you want to select the products that mike has bought, you just select all rows from the third table where the user id is equal to 1. In conjunction with foreign keys and indexes, the queries should also have a better performance. For clarification, this is how my example would look like in your current implementation.
id - username - password - products
1 - mike - XXXX - 2,3
2 - joe - XXXX - 1
$sql = "SELECT * FROM table
WHERE id IN (";
$i=1;
$count = count($array);
foreach($array as $a){
if($i==$count){
$sql .= $a['id'];
}else{
$sql .= $a['id'].','
}
$i++;
}
$sql .= ")";
Please try this..
Get the field with the ids ('1,2,3') from your first table into some variable -> $ids
$sql = sprintf(SELECT * FROM second_table WHERE id IN (%s),$ids);
Hope this helps.
ps.: I don't recommend storing id this way.
I working on a food database, every food has a list of properties (fats, energy, vitamins, etc.)
These props are composed by 50 different columns of proteins, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, elements, etc.. (they are a lot)
the number of columns could increase in the future, but not too much, 80 for extreme case
Each column needs an individual reference to one bibliography of a whole list from another table (needed to check if the value is reliable or not).
Consider the ids, should contain a number, a NULL val, or 0 for one specific exception reference (will point to another table)
I've though some solution, but they are very different eachothers, and I'm a rookie with db, so I have no idea about the best solution.
consider value_1 as proteins, value_2 as carbohydrates, etc..
The best (I hope) 2 alternatives I thought are:
(1) create one varchar(255?) column, with all 50 ids, so something like this:
column energy (7.00)
column carbohydrates (89.95)
column fats (63.12)
column value_bil_ids (165862,14861,816486) ## as a varchar
etc...
In this case, I can split it with "," to an array and check the ids, but I'm still worried about coding praticity... this could save too many columns, but I don't know how much could be pratical in order to scalability too.
Principally, I thought this option usual for query optimization (I hope!)
(2) Simply using an additional id column for every value, so:
column energy (7.00)
column energy_bibl_id (165862)
column carbohydrates (89.95)
column carbohydrates_bibl_id (14861)
column fats (63.12)
column fats_bibl_id (816486)
etc...
It seems to be a weightful number of columns, but much clear then first, especially for the relation of any value column and his ID.
(3) Create a relational table behind values and bibliographies, so
table values
energy
carbohydrates
fats
value_id --> point to table values_and_bibliographies val_bib_id
table values_and_bibliographies
val_bib_id
energy_id --> point to table bibliographies biblio_id
carbohydrates_id --> point to table bibliographies biblio_id
fats_id --> point to table bibliographies biblio_id
table bibliographies
biblio_id
biblio_name
biblio_year
I don't know if these are the best solutions, and I shall be grateful if someone will help me to bring light on it!
You need to normalize that table. What you are doing is madness and will cause you to loose hair. They are called relational databases so you can do what you want without adding of columns. You want to structure it so you add rows.
Please use real names and we can whip a schema out.
edit Good edit. #3 is getting close to a sane design. But you are still very unclear about what a bibliography is doing in a food schema! I think this is what you want. You can have a food and its components linked to a bibliography. I assume bibliography is like a recipe?
FOODS
id name
1 broccoli
2 chicken
COMPONENTS
id name
1 carbs
2 fat
3 energy
BIBLIOGRAPHIES
id name year
1 chicken soup 1995
FOOD_COMPONENTS links foods to their components
id food_id component_id bib_id value
1 1 1 1 25 grams
2 1 2 1 13 onces
So to get data you use a join.
SELECT * from FOOD_COMPONENTS fc
INNER JOIN COMPONENTS c on fc.component_id = c.id
INNER JOIN FOODS f on fc.foods_id = f.id
INNER JOIN BIBLIOGRAPHIES b on fc.bib_id = b.id
WHERE
b.name = 'Chicken Soup'
You seriously need to consider redesiging your database structure - it isn't recommended to keep adding columns to a table when you want to store additional data that relates to it.
In a relational database you can relate tables to one another through the use of foreign keys. Since you want to store a bunch of values that relate to your data, create a new table (called values or whatever), and then use the id from your original table as a foreign key in your new table.
Such a design that you have proposed will make writing queries a major headache, not to mention the abundance of null values you will have in your table assuming you don't need to fill every column..
Here's one approach you could take to allow you to add attributes all day long without changing your schema:
Table: Food - each row is a food you're describing
Id
Name
Description
...
Table: Attribute - each row is a numerical attribute that a food can have
Id
Name
MinValue
MaxValue
Unit (probably a 'repeating group', so should technically be in its own table)
Table: Bibliography - i don't know what this is, but you do
Id
...
Table: FoodAttribute - one record for each instance of a food having an attribute
Food
Attribute
Bibliography
Value
So you might have the following records
Food #1 = Cheeseburger
Attribute #1 = Fat (Unit = Grams)
Bibliography #1 = whatever relates to cheeseburgers and fat
Then, if a cheeseburger has 30 grams of fat, there would be an entry in the FoodAttribute table with 1 in the Food column, 1 in the Attribute column, a 1 in the Bibliography column, and 30 in the Value column.
(Note, you may need some other mechanisms to deal with non-numeric attributes.)
Read about Data Modeling and Database Normalization for more info on how to approach these types of problems...
Appending more columns to a table isn't recommended nor popular in the DB world, except with a NoSQL system.
Elaborate your intentions please :)
Why, for the love of $deity, are you doing this by columns? That way lies madness!
Decompose this table into rows, then put a column on each row. Without knowing more about what this is for and why it is like it is, it's hard to say more.
I re-read your question a number of times and I believe you are in fact attempting a relational schema and your concern is with the number of columns (you mention possibly 80) associated with a table. I assure you that 80 columns on a table is fine from a computational perspective. Your database can handle it. From a coding perspective, it may be high.
Proposed (1) Will fail when you want to add a column. You're effectively storing all your columns in a comma delimited single column. Bad.
I don't understand (2). It sounds the same as (3)
(3) is correct in spirit, but your example is muddled and unclear. Whittle your problem down to a simple case with five columsn or something and edit your question or post again.
In short, don't worry about number of columns right now. Low on the priority list.
If you have no need to form queries based on arbitrary key/value pairs you'd like to add to every record, you could in a pinch serialize()/unserialize() an associative array and put that into a single field
Here is the scenario 1.
I have a table called "items", inside the table has 2 columns, e. g. item_id and item_name.
I store my data in this way:
item_id | item_name
Ss001 | Shirt1
Sb002 | Shirt2
Tb001 | TShirt1
Tm002 | TShirt2
... etc, i store in this way:
first letter is the code for clothes, i.e S for shirt, T for tshirt
second letter is size, i.e s for small, m for medium and b for big
Lets say in my items table i got 10,000 items. I want to do fast retrieve, lets say I want to find a particular shirt, can I use:
Method1:
SELECT * from items WHERE item_id LIKE Sb99;
or should I do it like:
Method2:
SELECT * from items WHERE item_id LIKE S*;
*Store the result, then execute second search for the size, then third search for the id. Like the hash table concept.
What I want to achieve is, instead of search all the data, I want to minimize the search by search the clothes code first, follow by size code and then id code. Which one is better in term of speed in mysql. And which one is better in long run. I want to reduce the traffic and not to disturb the database so often.
Thanks guys for solving my first scenario. But another scenario comes in:
Scenario 2:
I am using PHP and MySQL. Continue from the preivous story. If my users table structure is like this:
user_id | username | items_collected
U0001 | Alex | Ss001;Tm002
U0002 | Daniel | Tb001;Sb002
U0003 | Michael | ...
U0004 | Thomas | ...
I store the items_collected in id form because one day each user can collect up to hundreds items, if I store as string, i.e. Shirt1, pants2, ..., it would required a very large amount of database spaces (imagine if we have 1000 users and some items name are very long).
Would it be easier to maintain if I store in id form?
And if lets say, I want to display the image, and the image's name is the item's name + jpg. How to do that? Is it something like this:
$result = Select items_collected from users where userid= $userid
Using php explode:
$itemsCollected = explode($result, ";");
After that, matching each item in the items table, so it would like:
shirt1, pants2 etc
Den using loop function, loop each value and add ".jpg" to display the image?
The first method will be faster - but IMO it's not the right way of doing it. I'm in agreement with tehvan about that.
I'd recommend keeping the item_id as is, but add two extra fields one for the code and one for the size, then you can do:
select * from items where item_code = 'S' and item_size = 'm'
With indexes the performance will be greatly increased, and you'll be able to easily match a range of sizes, or codes.
select * from items where item_code = 'S' and item_size IN ('m','s')
Migrate the db as follows:
alter table items add column item_code varchar(1) default '';
alter table items add column item_size varchar(1) default '';
update items set item_code = SUBSTRING(item_id, 1, 1);
update items set item_size = SUBSTRING(item_id, 2, 1);
The changes to the code should be equally simple to add. The long term benefit will be worth the effort.
For scenario 2 - that is not an efficient way of storing and retrieving data from a database. When used in this way the database is only acting as a storage engine, by encoding multiple data into fields you are precluding the relational part of the database from being useful.
What you should do in that circumstance is to have another table, call it 'items_collected'. The schema would be along the lines of
CREATE TABLE items_collected (
id int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment KEY,
userid int(11) NOT NULL,
item_code varchar(10) NOT NULL,
FOREIGN KEY (`userid`) REFERENCES `user`(`id`),
FOREIGN KEY (`itemcode`) REFERENCES `items`(`item_code`)
);
The foreign keys ensure that there is Referential integrity, it's essential to have referential integrity.
Then for the example you give you would have multiple records.
user_id | username | items_collected
U0001 | Alex | Ss001
U0001 | Alex | Tm002
U0002 | Daniel | Sb002
U0002 | Daniel | Tb001
U0003 | Michael | ...
U0004 | Thomas | ...
The first optimization would be splitting the id into three different fields:
one for type, one for size, one for the current id ending (whatever the ending means)
If you really want to keep the current structure, go for the result straight away (option 1).
If you want to speed up for results you should split up the column into multiple columns, one for each property.
Step 2 is to create an index for each column. Remember that mysql only uses one index per table per query. So if you really want speedy queries and your queries vary a lot with these properties, then you might want to create an index on (type,size,ending), (type,ending,size) etc.
For example a query with
select * from items where type = s and size = s and ending = 001
Can benefit from the index (type,size,ending) but:
select * from items where size = s and ending = 001
Can not, because the index will only be used in order, so it needs type, then size, then ending. This is why you might want multiple indexes if you really want fast searches.
One other note, generally it is not a good idea to use * in queries, but to select only the columns you need.
You need to have three columns for the model, size and id, and index them this way:
CREATE INDEX ix_1 ON (model, size, id)
CREATE INDEX ix_2 ON (size, id)
CREATE INDEX ix_3 ON (id, model)
Then you'll be able to search efficiently on any subset of the parameters:
model-size-id, model-size and model queries will use ix_1;
size-id and size queries will use ix_2;
model-id and id queries will use ix_3
Index on your column as it is now is equivalent to ix_1, and you can use this index to efficiently search on the appropriate conditions (model-size-id, model-size and model).
Actually, there is a certain access path called INDEX SKIN SCAN that may be used to search on non-first columns of a composite index, but MySQL does not support it AFAIK.
If you need to stick to your current design, you need to index the field and use queries like:
WHERE item_id LIKE #model || '%'
WHERE item_id LIKE #model || #size || '%'
WHERE item_id = #model || #size || #id
All these queries will use the index if any.
There is not need to put in into multiple queries.
I'm comfortable that you've designed your item_id to be searchable with a "Starts with" test. Indexes will solve that quickly for you.
I don't know MySQL, but in MSSQL having an index on a "Size" column that only has choices of S, M, L most probably won't achieve anything, the index won't be used because the values it contains are not sufficiently selective - i.e. its quicker to just go through all the data rather than "Find the first S entry in the index, now retrieve the data page for that row ..."
The exception is where the query is covered by the index - i.e. several parts of the WHERE clause (and indeed, all of them and also the SELECT columns) are included in the index. In this instance, however, the first field in the index (in MSSQL) needs to be selective. So put the column with the most distinct values first in the index.
Having said that if your application has a picklist for Size, Colour, etc. you should have those data attributes in separate columns in the record - and separate tables with lists of all the available Colours and Sizes, and then you can validate that the Colour / Size given to a Product is actually defined in the Colour / Size tables. Cuts down the Garbage-in / Garbage-out problem!
Your item_selected needs to be in a separate table so that it is "normalised". Don't store a delimited list in a single column, store it using individual rows in a separate table
Thus your USERS table will contain user_id & username
Your, new, items_collected table will contains user_id & item_id (and possibly also Date Purchased or Invoice Number)
You can then say "What did Alex buy" (your design has that) and also "Who bought Ss001" (which, in your design, would require ploughing through all the rows in your USERS table and splitting out the items_collected to find which ones contained Ss001 [1])
[1] Note that using LIKE wouldn't really be safe for that because you might have an item_id of "Ss001XXX" which would match WHERE items_collected LIKE '%Ss001%'