So Im designing currently three tables, an organization, organization_relationships, members.
Organization
OrgID PK
Metdata..
Org_Relationships
ParentOrgID PK
ChildOrgID Range/GSI
Member
OrgID PK
MemberID Range/GSI
One way that I need to access data, is by determining whether two members share a parent organization. With the way this is right now, I would basically have to do a weird search on the tables, that requires multiple calls to the table to determine whether two members belong to the same parent organization. With that being said is there a more efficient way of designing the table to do this without requiring multiple calls to the table.
The reason you're having to perform multiple queries is because you've modeled the relationship across several tables. This is a common approach when using traditional relational databases, but could be considered an anti-pattern with NoSQL databases.
Keep in mind that DynamoDB does not have a join operation like SQL databases. Therefore, it is a best practice to store related data in the same DynamoDB table. This can be counter-intuitive if you're used to working with relational DBs.
There are several ways to model your data in DynamoDB. The approach you choose depends on your access patterns. In other words, you store your data in a way that makes it easier to get the data your application needs.
For example, here's one way to model Users and Organizations:
The primary key is made up of a user id (e.g. USER#) and a sort key of META. This record (called an "item") in DynamoDB is where I'll define various user attributes. In this example, I've provided a name and an org attribute.
For illustrative purposes, I've also created a global secondary index (GSI) that swaps the partition key/sort key pattern in your base table. Your GSI will look like this:
This lets you fetch all users by organization.
If I wanted to check if two users are in the same organization, I can either query the GSI, or fetch both user records and compare the org fields.
This is just an example meant to give you a starting point with NoSQL design. The key takeaways here are:
NoSQL (or non-relational) data modeling is different than SQL (relational) data modeling.
You want to store related data in the same table.
How you store your data depends entirely on how you plan to use the data.
I searched many different topics here on stack over flow related to this question, but I can't seem to find an answer that makes sense to me. I come from a MS SQL Server background where just about every table has a primary key and many more have foreign keys. In Teradata I understand there are Primary keys and also unique primary indexes. It is to my understanding that values for a unique primary index in Teradata can't be null. If that is the case why even use primary keys at all? Is it just to enforce parent child relationships in the table structures like other RDBMS systems such as a sales order header table (PK) and sales order detail table (fk)? Maybe a good use for a UPI without a PK would be a table that has no relationships to another table like a "reporting" table?
Just want to make sure I understand correctly. Thank you for the help.
I am using Teradata via Sql Assistant. When I want to look up a relationship between two table I do the following : show table table1 and can see the create statement that generated the table with all primary and foreign keys. However, this is not very convenient because I might be missing something. So, is there any way to get the Entity Relationship Diagram ? I am interested in about 20 tables. So, how can I get relationships between them ?
SQL Assistant does not show relationships between objects through version 14.x. In my experience with Teradata, relationships have been modeled in proper modeling tools.
If your environment is enforcing referential integrity there are views in the DBC database that could be queried in SQL Assistant to help show you the relationships. However, the results would be in tabular form like any other query against the database.
DBC.All_RI_Children
DBC.All_RI_Parents
DBC.RI_Child_Tables
DBC.RI_Distinct_Children
DBC.RI_Distinct_Parents
DBC.RI_Parent_Tables
DBC.Tables2
I wonder can we make many relations between one table and many tables with many records in these tables?
For example;
I have a news table, that news can be mapped with Games, Developers, Platforms at the same time with multiple records.
Sample :
News : Crysis 55 pre-order available
Relations :
{Games:Crysis 55; Developers:Crytek; Platforms:Ps3,Xbox360,Pc,Wii;}
I really could not imagine how to be orm design.
OneToMany, ManyToMany?
Waiting for your great helpings.
ManyToMany will be the best fit for this. You could create 4 tables. One table for each (News, Games,Developers,Platforms). News will be your primary table that will contain foreign keys from games, developers, platforms.
This probably would help you in doctrine mapping.
http://docs.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-orm/en/latest/reference/association-mapping.html
I am planning to create a website using ASP.NET and SQL Server. However, my plan for the database design leaves me wondering if there is a better way.
The website will serve as a repository of information for various users. I figure I would have two databases, a Membership and Profile database.
The profile database would contain user data for all users, where each user may have ~20 tables. I would create the tables when the user account is created and generate a key used to name the tables. The tables are not directly related.
For Example a set of tables for two different users could look like:
User1 Tables - TransactionTable_Key1, AssetTable_Key1, ResearchTable_Key1 ....;
User2 Tables - TransactionTable_Key2, AssetTable_Key2, ResearchTable_Key2 ....;
The Key1, Key2 etc.. values would be retrieved based on the MembershipID data when the account was created. This could result in a very large number of tables over time. I'm not sure if this will limit scalability by setting up the database in this way. Any recommendations?
Edit: I should mention that some of these tables would contain 20k+ rows.
Realistically it sounds like you only really need one database for this.
From the way you worded your question, it sounds like you're trying to dynamically create tables for users as they create accounts. I wouldn't recommend this method.
What you want to do is create a master table that contains a primary key for each individual user. I'm assuming this is the Membership table. Then create the ~20 tables that you need for the profiles of these members. Every record, no matter the number of users that you have, will go into these tables. These 20 tables would need to have a foreign key pointing to the unique identifier of the Membership table.
When you want to query a Member for their user information, just select from the tables where the membership table's primary Id matches the foreign key in the profile tables.
This would result in only a few tables in the end and is easily maintainable and follows better database design.
Your ORM layer (EF, LINQ, DAL code) will hate having to deal with one set of tables per tenant. It is much better to have either one set of tables for all tenant in a single database, or a separate database per tenant. The later is only better if schema upgrade has to be vetted by tenant (like Salesforce.com has). If you can afford to upgrade all tenant to a new schema at once then there is no reason for database per tenant.
When you design a schema that hold multiple tenant the important things to remember are
don't use heaps, all tables must be clustered index
add the tenant ID as the leftmost key to every clustered
add the tenant ID as the leftmost key to every non-clustered index too
add the Left.tenantID = right.tenantID predicate to every join
add the table.TenantID = #currentTenantID to every query
These are fairly simple rules and if you obey them (with no exceptions) you will get a perfect partitioning per tenant of every query (no query will ever ever scan rows in a range of a different tenant) so you eliminate contention between tenants. To be more through, you can disable lock escalation to make sure no tenant escalates to block every other tenant.
This design also lends itself to table partitioning and to sharing the database for scale-out.
You definitely don't want to create a set of tables for each user, and you would want these only in one database. Even with SQL Server 2008's large capacity for tables (note really total objects in database), it would quickly become unmanageable. Your best bet is to use 20 tables, and separate them via a column into user areas. You might consider partitioning the tables by this user value, but that should be tested for performance reasons too.
Yes, since the tables only contain id, key, and value, why not make one single table?
Have the columns:
id, user ID, key, value
Put an Index on the user ID field.
A key idea behind a relational database is that the table structure does not change. You create a solid set of tables, and these are the "bones" of your application.
Cheers,
Daniel
Neal,
The solution really depends on your requirement. If security and data access are concern and you have only a handful of users, you can set up a different db for each user with access for him set to only his/her database.
Other wise, what Daniel Williams suggested is a good alternative where you have one DB and tables laid out with a indexed column partitioning the users data rows.
It's hard to tell from the summary, but it looks like you are designing for dynamic attribution by user. This design approach is called EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value) and consists of a simple base collection key (UserID, SiteID, ProductID...) and then rows consisting of name/value pairs. In a more complex version, categories are sometimes added as "super columns" to the tuple/row and provide sub-groupings for a set of name/value pairs.
Designing in this way moves responsibility for data type integrity, relational integrity and tuple integrity to the application layer.
The risk with doing this in a relational system involves the breaking of the tuple or row into a set of rows. Updates, deletes, missing values and the definition of a tuple are no longer easily accessible through human interaction. As your application evolves and the definition of a tuple changes, it becomes almost impossible to tell if a name/value pair is missing because it's part of an earlier-version tuple or because it was unintentionally deleted. Ad-hoc research as well becomes harder to manage as business analysts must keep an understanding of the virtual structure either in their heads or in documentation provided.
If you are looking to implement an EAV model, I would suggest you look at a non-relational solution (nosql) like MongoDB or CouchDB. These stores allow a developer to save and retrieve "documents" or json-formatted messages that are essentially made up of a collection of name/value pairs and can look very much like a serialized object. The advantage here is that you can store dynamic attribution without breaking your tuple. You always know that you have a complete tuple because you can store and retrieve it as a single "blob" of information that can be serialized and deserialized at-will. You can also update single attributes within the tuple, if that's a concern.
MongoDB also provides some database-like features such as multiple-attribute indexes, a query engine that is robust in comparison to other similar non-relational offerings and a sharding solution that is much less trouble than trying to do it with MySQL.
I hope this helps.