I came to know that there is Crow's foot ER diagram notation, and got a good quick reference. Have a look at the below diagram:
I did get some clarity on these symbols, however I have difficulty in understanding:
1) Why we have the "connector symbols" on both side of the line?
2) How to interpret them?
Can anyone please help me understand this?
Your reference is somewhat incorrect. The Entity-Relationship model doesn't use Crow's foot. Chen's notation and extensions to that notation can be called ER diagrams.
Your diagram is a generalization of table diagrams, modified to allow many-to-many associations and hide attributes. However, it doesn't represent relationships using their own shapes, and I see no indication of support for ternary or higher relationships. There's also no indication of other ER concepts like weak entities, associative entities, identifying relationships or keys.
Data models that only support binary relationships are usually based on the network data model, not on the Entity-Relationship model. Relationships in the ER model, when physically implemented, are represented by two or more entity columns in the same table, not by any kind of link between tables. In actual table diagrams, many-to-many relationships are represented by their own table, with two one-to-many association lines. In those cases, the cardinality indicators represent the number and optionality of records with matching values for matching PK/FK columns.
The interpretation of the Crow's foot symbols are indicated in the orange column. For more information about modeling with Crow's foot, see Entity Modelling. However, don't confuse this with the Entity-Relationship model as described by Chen, or either of them with the Relational model.
Related
I see that there are two different ways to make entity relationship on the example illustrated below (either by one to one or by many to many). Which one is better method? (What is the better method in terms of common practice or widely accepted convention. Possibly, which one is more efficient? If there is no better method what would be the trade-off of using one instead of another?)
One-to-one method
Many-to-many method
First of all, neither diagram is an entity-relationship diagram. Entity-relationship diagrams should be able to represent entity-relationship concepts, but the notation you used doesn't distinguish between entity relations and relationship relations, and shows columns, types and foreign key constraints, which belong in a physical model rather than a conceptual one. What you have is better described as table diagrams. For ERDs, I recommend Chen's original notation or something close to it.
The first diagram mixes a higher-level abstraction into an otherwise physical model, and for that reason, I recommend the second style as it's more consistent.
Note that in either diagram, CompanyType_ID in General appears at odds with the type of relationship you're trying to represent. It may not necessarily be wrong (entities described in General may each have a primary or distinguished CompanyType in addition to a set of secondary types) but even if it's modeled that way intentionally, it warrants a second look at least.
I'm designing an ER diagram for a social network and recently I got involved in an argument with my colleagues whether this part is right or wrong
ER DIAGRAM PROBLEM
Where Faqet(Pages) is connected with Shfrytezuesi(User) using three actions, pelqen is for storing likes, krijon faqe to know who created the page, and udheheq to store all page admins, so my question is
is this design wrong?
Can two tables be linked with more than one action, this is where I'm not certain
It's perfectly valid to have any number of relationships between any number of entity sets. My only concern with the diagram is that multiple role lines below Shfrytezuesi are merged into one - I recommend keeping them distinct.
Note that in the entity-relationship model, we don't link tables. That idea comes from the old network data model, in which rows represented entities, tables represented entity sets, and links between rows/tables represented relationships.
One disadvantage with that model is that it supports only directed binary relationships - many-to-many binary, ternary and higher relationships and relationships with attributes all required associative entities to be introduced. However, three binary relationships aren't equivalent to a ternary relationship, and not all relationships can be represented in binary data models.
The ER model supports n-ary relationships and attributes on relationships. Entity sets are represented by their primary keys and relationships by combinations of entity keys. Entity sets plus attributes form entity relations, relationship sets plus attributes form entity relations. These relations get mapped to tables. In practice, tables with the same primary keys get combined to reduce the number of tables, which means one-to-one and one-to-many relationships get combined into the relations for one of their associated entity sets.
Regardless of how tables are combined, attributes and relationships are represented by sets of columns. For example, based on your diagram, Pelqen would be represented as (FID PK, SID) (assuming SID is the primary key of Shfrytezuesi). These columns might have different names, e.g. SID might be renamed to AdminSID, especially if the relationship was combined into Faqet. The old network data model would view FID FK -> FID PK as a relationship, which as described above and below is a very limited kind of relationship and not the approach taken by the ER model.
Another disadvantage of the network data model is predetermined access paths, which means we have to navigate from table to table using the predefined relationships. This complicated queries and data processing significantly. This limitation was one of the main drivers for the development of the relational model, to which the ER model maps. The understanding of tables as relations in the RM enables us to construct and navigate arbitrary access paths using joins. So, we do link tables in the RM, but at query time and as needed rather than at design time. The ER model is used for conceptual design only and doesn't describe relationships between tables, only relationships between entity sets.
Now, the ER model isn't a complete and consistent logical model like the RM, but it is a significant improvement over the network data model. An even more rigorous approach than ER would be object-role modeling, but that's a different topic.
I need to create an ER diagram and a relational model for a hospital. I have kept it simple to 3 entities. Please can someone have a look and tell me if I have normalised this correctly?
I am not sure it there should be a : relationship between the trust and patients? Does a person assume that the first entity is a single unit, in this case a hospital has x relationships to....
Diagram 2:
ER Diagram & Relational Schema
Your normalization isn't correct. First of all, you don't list functional dependencies. Without that, any attempt to normalize is just guesswork.
Now, I can make a reasonable guess, but even with that you have some problems. The Hires and Cares for relations aren't reflected in your 1NF/2NF/3NF tables. In your 2NF, you introduce a Shift relation that was presumably derived from Doctor in 1NF, but Patient_ID wasn't present in the latter, unless that's actually what the Shift column was for, but renaming fields isn't part of normalization. Also, what happened to Hospital in 2NF? It reappears in 3NF but with a Location attribute that was derived from where? Also, you're not indicating a primary key for Shift, is it correct to assume the combination of all 4 fields constitute a candidate key? It's good practice to be explicit about your keys.
Can an entity be without attributes?
Your Hospital relation does have an attribute - Hospital_ID, which represents an identity relation. Remember an attribute is a binary relation, and Hospital_ID -> Hospital_ID qualifies.
I am not sure it there should be a : relationship between the trust and patients?
What is the trust? It isn't indicated in your diagram at all.
Does a person assume that the first entity is a single unit, in this case a hospital has x relationships to....
Many-to-many relationships are decomposed into two or more one-to-many relationships, and in reading the cardinality indicators we tend to put the singular entity first, but this isn't a rule or a safe assumption. Be explicit about cardinalities.
I have entity called Item. It has attribute title and I want it to have collection of subitems (type of Item).
One item can have many (sub)items. (sub)item is part of right one item. For example, there is item titled as car. It has subitems titled wheels, engine and cabine. Cabine has subitems seat and steering wheel.
How to model it? Should I set inverse to subitems? If I set no inverse, I'm getting warning. And whether it is inverse or not, it is still many-to-many. No way to set it one-to-many.
How should I think of this problem? I don't have much experience with databases and I think there is also difference between modeling in Core Data and in SQL.
EDIT: There should be subitems instead of subitem in the picture
I've added relationship superitem as inverse to subitems. superitem is to-one type with nullify delete rule and subitems is to-many type with cascade delete rule. Seems to be the most perfect solution for my case. As bonus I don't have to write my own - addSubitem: method (as it is not generated for Swift) because it is automatically added if I set item's superitem.
Object modeling and relational database design are quite different, at least on the surface. The concepts of encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism have no exact analog in the relational data model. You are going to have to think about the problem in two different ways in order to do both object modeling and relational database design.
There is a model that is sort of half way between them. It's called the "Entity Relationship model", and this has been around almost as long as the relational model. This is useful for thinking about the problem and analyzing the data requirements at a conceptual level. ER modeling is very parallel to object modeling, except that object modeling models behavior as well as data, and ER modeling only models data.
The problem with learning ER modeling for this purpose is that in the present state of affairs, most of the professionals who use ER diagrams do not use them to depict a conceptual model. They use them to depict a relational design for a database. So if you learn ER modeling from them, you'll learn a design methodology, and not an analysis methodology.
Data analysis and database design are really very different activities, and it's useful to keep them separate in your mind, even if a single project requires you to do both of them. Oddly enough, the same division ultimately comes up in object modeling as well. Some object models are analysis models, and try to clarify the problem space. Other object models are design models, and try to clarify the solution space.
Acknowledging what Mitty said. You need wrap your brain around objects (not relational tables). Considering your example I would break it down as follows. The top level object is an item such as a car, truck, airplane, boat, etc. Items can have systems such as engines, transmissions, cabins. Systems can have components such as pistons, spark plugs, seats, steering wheels, tires. If you think of all these things as objects, then perhaps the beginning of a model would look like this:
An item may have many systems. Systems may have many components. Apple recommends setting the inverse, but you should worry more about the relationships and their cardinality (i.e. one-to-one, one-to-many). You can use a reflexive relationship (to self) as you depicted, but I think that limits your ability to really leverage the power of the object model as all 'things' would be represented as 'item' and you wouldn't have the nice distinction of system and component (IMO)
One of the databases that I'm working on has some quirky behavior that I want to account for in the entity-relationship diagram.
One of the behaviors is that there is a 'booking' table and a 'invoice' table. When a 'booking' is invoiced, then the record is inserted into the 'invoice' table and then deleted from the 'booking' table.
However, a reference is still kept of the booking number.
How do we model this? Big arrow between the tables and some text beside it describing what happens?
No, changing the database schema is not possible at this point in time
Edit: This is the type of diagram that I want to use:
alt text http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/5601/erdartistperformssong.png
Link
If, by ERD, you mean the original "Chen" diagrams where the relationship was words written in a diamond, then you have a relationship between between Booking and Invoice. It's a special kind of relationship that's NOT implemented with a simple foreign key; it's implemented via a complicated move and a constraint.
If, by ERD, you mean the diagrams that ERwin draws, then you don't have an easy way to do this. It tends to focus you on drawing PK-FK relationships. You have a non-PK-FK relationship between these things. Some kind of line with text is about all you can do.
Arrows, BTW, aren't appropriate because the ERD shows the "state" of the database. Data flowing around isn't part of an ERD. You do have a relationship, it's just not a typical PK-FK relationship. It's an atypical relationship based on rows existing in some places and not existing in others.
In the UML you can easily draw this as a "constraint" among the relationships.
I don't know what these people are talking about.
The Entity Relation Diagram doesn't describe the data fully; yes of course, it only shows Entities and Relations, it doesn't show Attributes. That's why it is called an ERD and not a Data Model. Evidently many people here can't tell the difference.
The Data Model is supposed to show as much as possible. But it depends on (a) the standard [if any] that you use and (b) the Notation. Some show more than others. IDEF1X which is the only Relational modelling Standard (NIST 184 of 1993). It is the most complete, and shows intricacies and complexities that other notations do not show. Recently MS and others have come out with "simplified" notations, of course, much is lost in the "ERDs".
It is not "process flow", it is a relation in a database.
UML is completely inappropriate for modelling data, especially when there is at least one Standard plus several non-standard but commonly used data modelling notations. There is nothing that can be shown in UML that can't be shown in IDEF1X. But most developers here have never heard of it (developers should not be modelling unless they have acquired modelling skills, but that is another story)..
This is a perfectly legal; it may not be commonly known, but it is legal and named. It is a Supertype-Subtype relation, except that the Cardinality is 1::0-n instead of 1::0-1. The IDEF1X Notation (right) has a Subtype symbol. Note there is only one relation at the parent end; and one each at the child end. And of course the crows feet show the cardinality. These relations can be Exclusive or Non-exclusive; yours is Exclusive; that is what the X through the half-circle means.
ERwin is the only modelling (not diagramming) tool that implements IDEF1X, and thus has the full complement of the IDEF1X Notation.
Of course, the Standard, the modelling capability, are all in the mind, not in the tool. I draw Data Models that are IDEF1X-compliant using a simple drawing tool.
I find that some developers baulk at the Subtype symbol, so I show a simplified version (left) in my IDEF1X models; it is intended to convey the sense of exclusivity, while the retention of the single line at the parent end indicates it is a subtype.
Lott: Click here▶Link to Data Model◀Lott: Click here
Link to IDEF1X Notation for those who are unfamiliar with the Relational Modelling Standard.
Sounds like a process flow, not an entity relationship. If at the time the entry is added to invoice, and the entry is deleted from booking, then there is never a relationship between the two. There is never a situation where you can traverse that relationship because there is never a record in both places that can be related together.
ERD don't describe the database fully. There are other things like process flow and use cases that detail other facets of the system.
This is kind of an analogy to UML for software. A class diagram doesn't show you all the different ways classes interact. One class might initialize locally and call functions of another class, but because there is not composition or inheritance that relates those two classes, then the class diagram doesn't show this relationship. Only when you fully document the system with all the various types of diagrams can you see all the facets of how it operates.