I was going through this site to understand ER to relational model mapping.
Below is the link:
ER Model to Relational model
Consider case 1: It says that since the passport entity type is in total participation, we can merge person and passport tables along with the has relationship into one table with all the attributes of the above three and primary key as Person_id.
My doubt is that wont it lead to a lot of NULL values for those people who do not own a passport. I was thinking that a better solution would be to include Person_id as a foreign key in the Passport relation and a separate relation for Person entity type itself.
Both the solutions seems to have their pros and cons:
1) One big table means a possibility of lot of NULL values but ease of access of passport details of a person.
2) Two separate tables mean that no NULL values but to find the passport details of people, we have to perform a join operation or search through two separate tables.
Which of these two solutions is correct? By correct, I mean to ask that in common practice in such cases, which solution is used?
Both solutions are commonly used. I would only consider option 1 if no other information depended on the passport number, but in this case I'd model it as an (optional) attribute in ER and not a separate entity. If a passport has any dependent attributes, such as country of origin or expiry date, I would model it as a separate entity and implement it using option 2.
Related
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 am learning about ER modelling about Database systems. My problem is that there is a entity called books,enitity named user and I want to create a borrows relationship between user and book with attribute issue date. I modelled it as described but it was pointed that borrows cannot be a relationship because a same user can borrow a book twice. Can anybody explain me what this is as I am using issue data as an attribute so records in borrows relationship would not collide as I will use PK as userid,bookid and issue date. How can I model this accurately? I am a little confused in this.
In the ER model, entity relations consist of attributes of a single entity set, in which the PK identifies only one entity set. Relationship relations have a composite PK that represents two or more entity sets.
Your question uses a composite PK that represents two entity sets (userid and bookid) and a value set (issue date). Strictly speaking, it's neither an entity relation nor a relationship relation. It's a combination of a relationship relation (two entity keys) and a weak entity set (issue date functions similar to a weak key). If we want to be creative, we might call it a weak relationship.
If I was forced to draw an ER diagram for this, I might present it like this:
The ER model isn't a complete logical model (unlike the relational model) and there are some situations which aren't handled well or at all. This is one of those situations.
As per description, User and Book are the entities.
One user can borrow an instance of book.
Similary, one user can borrow multiple instances of book, whether It can be same
instance or various instances.
So every transaction between the User and Book has the Issue Date.
Neither the user nor the book has the Issue Date.
Here, the relationship between User and Book are Many to Many.
The Bridge table is Transaction. We can name it as Borrow also as per your interest.
Now, The user has one to many transactions.
Every Book has one to many transactions.
Every transaction is a combination of a User and Book.
Note: Since every user can have the same book multiple times and at the same day. So we can have a composite primary key of user_id, book_id and Issue_timestamp as there is a chance of redundancy in the Issue Date in the same combination.
How can I represent my lookup tables in technical reports?
In other words, the ER model is used to represent a database,
but what about lookup tables?
To recover a conceptual model (entity sets, attributes and relationships) from a physical model (tables and columns), we first have to understand the logical model. This means understanding the domains and functional dependencies which are represented by the lookup table.
Lookup table is a common term which can mean different things. I generally understand it as a table which represents a domain with a surrogate key, and associates it with a name and/or a few other attributes. In the ER model, these would be simple entity relations, and leaves / terminal nodes in the graph of entity sets.
If a lookup table records facts about only one type of thing (represented by the key of the lookup table), then you can represent that type as an entity set (rectangle) with an attribute (oval) for each dependent column, and draw relationships (diamonds) to connect it to other entity sets as required. Look for foreign key columns / constraints in other tables to find these relationships.
For example, consider the following physical model:
CarMake and CarModel are examples of lookup tables. This isn't a very good model, since in the real world CarModelId determines CarMakeId, while the model treats them as independent elements in CarSales. However, since the point of the example is to focus on lookup tables, I'll use it as is.
In this case, CarMake and CarModel describe a single entity set each. Their functional dependencies are CarMakeId -> CarMakeName and CarModelId -> CarModelName. In CarSales, we've got CarSaleId -> RegNumber, Price, SoldOn (attributes) and CarSaleId -> CarMakeId, CarModelId (relationships).
In this case our ER model is similar to the physical model:
However, in some cases, you may find multiple types of things combined into one lookup table due to the similar physical structure. This doesn't affect the logical or conceptual models, but makes it more complicated to recover since we have to understand how the table is used to unpack it.
What is the difference between ER Diagrams and Database Schema? MySQL Workbench has facility to draw ER diagrams, but the symbols for ER diagrams different in other drawing tools than MySQL Workbench method.
A database schema is usually a relational model/diagram. it shows the link between tables: primary keys and foreign keys.
In database diagram the relation between an apple and a apple tree would be:
A foreign key "ID__TRE" which cannot be null in the table "APPLE" is linked to a primary key "ID_TRE" in the table "TREE".
An entity relationship diagram. Shows links between the entities and the kind of relation between them. We are not talking about tables or keys there! Usually the entity relationship diagram follows Merise model. Database manager and developer as myself usually build an entity relationship model before conceiving the relational model/diagram.
The set of symbol in Merise are:(0-1, 0-n, 1-1, 1-n). The first number 0 or 1 describes whether the other part of the association is required for an object to exist. If it is zero, it means it can exists without being associated. If it is One it means that the object only exist in relation with an other object (e.g an apple need a tree to exist --> 1, a tree needn't apple to exists -->0)
The second character tell us how many objects are accepted in the other part of the association. If it is 1, then only one object can exists in the relation, if it is n, a infinite number of object can be linked (e.g.: an apple can have one tree --> 1, a tree can have multiples apples --> n)
With Entity relationship the relationship will be described as :
An apple has to belong to at least one tree to exists and can belong to only one tree(1-1). A tree needn't an apple to exist but it can have an infinite number of apples (0-n).
In fact both description mean the same but one is database oriented while the other is modelling oriented. Some modelling software such as DB-MAIN convert automatically an ER diagram to the relational diagram.
ENTITY RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAMS (ERDs) are just that: DIAGRAMS which describe the RELATIONSHIPS between ENTITIES. Now let's look closer...
ERDs are often created by Business Analysts (NOT DBAs);
ERDs are often described in LAYMAN's terms (NOT techno-speak of DBAs or other);
ERDs are meant to summarize & clarify understanding for End Users and Business SMEs (again, NOT the DBAs or Developers)
ERDs work best when each entity is described in the SINGULAR, and the lines connecting various entities to other entities in the ERD use verbs (of action or possession, or existence) to describe each relation;
ERDs can (and do) include lines which denote n:n relationships, but this is not a requirement.
Examples of entities in an ERD for a blog: Member, Post, Comment, Category
Examples of relationships described in an ERD:
Member "posts" 1 to n Posts; (note we AREN'T describe WHAT a post looks like)
Post "relevant-to" 1 to n Categories
etc.
DATA SCHEMAS bear some resemblance to ERDs, but they should NOT be considered either equivalent or interchangeable. If you make an ERD which can be used as a data schema... be open to the possibility you DIDN'T make an ERD ! ;-)
DATA schemas are diagrams used to describe to a DBA how data will be stored in a database (relational or non-relational).
Data Schemas almost invariable describe the structure & characteristics of TABLES;
Tables are "containers" (cardboard boxes);
As such tables in a data schema are BEST named in the PLURAL
Examples of the TABLES in a SCHEMA for the same blog:
MEMBERS, POSTS, CATEGORIES, COMMENTS (relational database)
or
POSTS (keyed by Member-Date and all other columns in 1 table (non-relational database like for a "big data" project);
a data schema would then describe the data contained in each table:
MEMBER
FirstName (char:25)
LastName (char:25)
etc.
the lines between tables in a data schema would NOT try to represent any 'relation' other than a "KEY" between 2 fields which could be used to "join" the tables, and some additional characteristics of those lines to denote n:n relationships.
BOTH diagrams serve quite DIFFERENT purposes:
ERD: to make mere mortal end-users (and business owners) UNDERSTAND the model of a given business solution; and
DATA SCHEMA: a "blueprint" used by DBAs to BUILD databases, and by DEVELOPERS to CONSUME the data in that database.
A database schema is a description of the actual construction of the database. It is an all-encompassing term that refers to the collective of tables, columns, triggers, relationships, key constraints, functions and procedures. It can refer to a document that describes all of this (such as an XML Schema) or as an abstraction of database makeup itself ("It would be difficult to change the schema of the database at this point"). It does not refer to rows inserted into the schema, or data itself. You would insert data into an existing schema.
An Entity Relationship Diagram is a visualization of the relationships between tables in a database. At the very least, it includes table names visualized as squares connected by lines that represent primary and foreign key constraints. It often includes the column names and symbols that include information about what kind of relationship exists between the columns (one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many).
I'm using MS SQL Server 2008R2, but I believe this is database agnostic.
I'm redesigning some of my sql structure, and I'm looking for the best way to set up 1 to many relationships.
I have 3 tables, Companies, Suppliers and Utilities, any of these can have a 1 to many relationship with another table called VanInfo.
A van info record can either belong to a company, supplier or utility.
I originally had a company_id in the VanInfo table that pointed to the company table, but then when I added suppliers, they needed vaninfo records as well, so I added another column in VanInfo for supplier_id, and set a constraint that either supplier_id or company_id was set and the other was null.
Now I've added Utilities, and now they need access to the VanInfo table, and I'm realizing that this is not the optimum structure.
What would be the proper way of setting up these relationships? Or should I just continue adding foreign keys to the VanInfo table? or set up some sort of cross reference table.
The application isn't technically live yet, but I want to make sure that this is set up using the best possible practices.
UPDATE:
Thank you for all the quick responses.
I've read all the suggestions, checked out all the links. My main criteria is something that would be easy to modify and maintain as clients requirements always tend to change without a lot of notice. After studying, research and planning, I'm thinking it is best to go with a cross reference table of sorts named Organizations, and 1 to 1 relationships between Companies/Utilities/Suppliers and the Organizations table, allowing a clean relationship to the Vaninfo table. This is going to be easy to maintain and still properly model my business objects.
With your example I would always go for 'some sort of cross reference table' - adding columns to the VanInfo table smells.
Ultimately you'll have more joins in your SP's but I think the overhead is worth it.
When you design a database you should not think about where the primary/foreign key goes because those are concepts that doesn’t belong to the design stage. I know it sound weird but you should not think about tables as well ! (you could implement your E/R model using XML/Files/Whatever
Sticking to E/R relationship design you should just indentify your entity (in your case Company/supplier/utilities/vanInfo) and then think about what kind of relationship there is between them(if there are any). For example you said the company can have one or more VanInfo but the Van Info can belong only to one Company. We are talking about a one – to- many relationship as you have already guessed. At this point when you “convert” you design model (a one-to many relationship) to a Database table you will know where to put the keys/ foreign keys. In the case of a one-to-Many relationship the foreign key should go to the “Many” side. In this case the van info will have a foreign keys to company (so the vaninfo table will contain the company id) . You have to follow this way for all the others tables
Have a look at the link below:
https://homepages.westminster.org.uk/it_new/BTEC%20Development/Advanced/Advanced%20Data%20Handling/ERdiagrams/build.htm
Consider making Com, Sup and Util PKs a GUID, this should be enough to solve the problem. However this sutiation may be a good indicator of poor database design, but to propose a different solution one should know more broad database context, i.e. that you are trying to achive. To me this seems like a VanInfo should be just a separate entity for each of the tables (yes, exact duplicate like Com_VanInfo, Sup_VanInfo etc), unless VanInfo isn't shared between this entities (then relationships should be inverted, i.e. Com, Sup and Util should contain FK for VanInfo).
Your database basically need normalization and I think you're database should be on its fifth normal form where you have two tables linked by one table. Please see this article, this will help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_normal_form
You may also want to see this, database normalization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization