I am trying implement a Multi table Inheritance. In my situation I am trying modeling Appliances. Appliances have common attributes like price, name and model but there are different types of appliances like TV, Freezer, Fridge with different attributes (temperature, size, etc...).
I search and I found this gem https://github.com/hzamani/active_record-acts_as. What you think ? What is the best way to implement this ? There is other pattern to implement this ?
I have used Single Table Inheritance quite a bit and it works really well.
However in this case, you can have one table with common attributes and then different tables for the attributes that are not shared. You can specify the relationship in inherited models.
Or you can have a single table with a serialised column to store different attributes. But that will get clunky if you try to do a search on them.
Probably Multi Table Inheritance will be the best way to go
The only way to know if the gem is good is to try it
Related
We have to create a request system which will have roughly 10 different types of requests. All of these requests will belong to the 'accounting' aspect of our application. Therefore we've called them "Accounting requests".
All requests share maybe only a few columns and each has up to 20 columns individually.
We started to wonder if having separate tables for each request type would be practical in terms of speed when we start to have to do very complicated joins or queries, for example, fetching ALL requests types into a single table and then sorting it.
Maybe it would be easier to just use Single Table Inheritance since it will have a type column and we'd be using one table to store all 10 accounting request types.
What do you think regarding using STI for this many polymorphic associations and requirements?
Essentially, it would have models like so:
AccountingRequest
BillingRequest < AccountingRequest
CheckRequest < AccountingRequest
CancellationRequest < AccountingRequest
Each subclass has roughly 10+ fields.
Currently reading about Multiple Table Inheritance here. This seems like the solution that fits my requirements in this case. Not sure yet though.
STI is a good fit if your models all share the same attributes.
However if your sub classes start having attributes specific to them and not applicable to others, then STI can result in a lot of null columns. In that case, I usually prefer to go with polymorphic association.
This railscast episode is a great example of the difference between the 2
You can use STI in that situation. But making STI will require all the columns into one single table and that's not the good think. The table will go very large in the number of fields.
I think you should divide into two tables like as below...
Request: A request table will be the polymorphic table which saved the information for the type of requests.
RequestItem: The request item table will save all the 20 fields records into the table and will have a foreign key of request table. The request item table will have two fields into the database that's called key and value.
It sounds do-able.
When I've looked into this, I found that making extensive use of value objects helped to control the non-applicability of some attributes to some of the types.
In my case I had types of products, some of which would not have particular measurements for example. In those cases I used a Null Object to indicate "Not applicable" where appropriate.
Edit: I also found the composed_of syntax very convenient: https://apidock.com/rails/ActiveRecord/Aggregations/ClassMethods/composed_of
For now I'm using a bit of NoSQL for such cases. Postgresql's JSONB type allows to store multilevel ruby hash. It also provides rich functionality: DB level constraints, indexes and query operators.
So common attributes are stored in standard way and child specific - in jsonb. Then you can use whatever you need on top of this: STI, Value Objects pattern, serialization or just create scopes for each child. I prefer the last one - my models are thin, most of constraints are DB level and all business logic is in service classes.
Pros:
Avoiding alter table on big tables when need to add one more child type
Keeping my queries efficient
Preventing storing and selecting unnecessary columns
Serialization out of the box for JSON APIs
Cons:
A bit of schemaless
Vendor lock
I'm working on a Rails 5 app for Guild Wars 2, and I'm trying to figure out a way to serialize and store all of the items in the game without duplicating code or table columns. The game has a public API to get the items from, documented
here: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/API:2/items
As you can see, all of the items share several pieces of data like ID, value, rarity, etc. but then also branch off into specific details based on their type.
I've been searching around for a solution, and I've found a few answers, but none that work for this specific situation.
Single Table Inheritance: There's way too much variance between items. STI would likely end up with a table over 100 columns wide, with most of them null.
Polymorphic Associations: Really doesn't seem to be the proper way to use these. I'm not trying to create a type of model that gets included multiple other places, I just want to extend the data of my "Item" model.
Multiple Table Inheritance: This looks to me like the perfect solution. It would do exactly what I'm wanting. Unfortunately, ActiveRecord does not support this, and all of the "workarounds" I've found seem hacky and weird.
Basically, what I'm wanting is a single "Item" model with the common columns, then a "details" attribute that will fetch the type-specific data from the relevant table.
What's the best way to create this schema?
One possible solution:
Use #serialize on the details (text) column
class Item
serialize :details, Hash
end
One huge downside is that this is very inefficient if you need to query on the details data. This essentially bypasses the native abstractions of the database.
I was in a similar situation recently. I solved by using Sequel instead of ActiveRecords.
You can find it here:
https://github.com/TalentBox/sequel-rails
And an implmentation example:
http://www.matchingnotes.com/class-table-inheritance-in-rails.html
Good luck
I'm starting building my first rails app and i already have user model with STI (admin, employee, public and representative all inherits from user model).
but now i want to add specific columns (adress, state, phone) for representative subclass but i cannot apply migration directly for subclass model.
the first solution is to add these columns tu user model but i don't know how th restrict acess to only representant subclass
the second solution is to create a separate contact table and and then use polymorphic association (i want to associate with other model) and add the attributes
my question is what is the best solution for this case? and if there is better solution?
Thanks
Hope you Doing well
I think second option is better then first.
Reason:
1) If this all filed are optional then it will create record with null value but in second case if all filed are optional then record will not be created,there is no need to any entry for that.
2) In future there is requirement of add or use this filed into other model then you can do by easily with polymorphic association .
It sounds like you are abusing the idea of an STI in this case. The general rule, is that you might have different associations for different child models and different behaviour BUT you ALWAYS have all the table columns used by all child models.
The whole Idea for why you would want to use STI is that all models contain the same structure of data, but maybe have different behaviours. In your case, I would suggest using associations (as you suggested yourself) and then add the has_one/has_many in the child model, which would limit the associations scope within the inheritance chain.
It is not possible to restrict columns to only some child models without patching ApplicationRecord. But in any case, even if you manage to make a patch to introduce this kind of behaviour, your database table will still have all the columns for all the tables, thus resulting in bigger database tables due to half empty columns, increased size and reduced performance.
I hope that answers your question.
So this is probably a fairly easy question to answer but here goes anyway.
I want to have this view, say media_objects/ that shows a list of media objects. Easy enough, right? However, I want the list of media objects to be a collection of things that are subtypes of MediaObject, CDMediaObject, DVDMediaObject, for example. Each of these subtypes needs to be represented with a db table for specific set of metadata that is not entirely common across the subtypes.
My first pass at this was to create a model for each of the subtypes, alter the MediaObject to be smart enough to join into those tables on it's conceptual 'all' behavior. This seems straightforward enough but I end up doing a lot of little things that feel not so rails-O-rific so I wanted to ask for advice here.
I don't have any concrete code for this example yet, obviously, but if you have questions I'll gladly edit this question to provide that information...
thanks!
Creating a model for each sub-type is the way to go, but what you're talking about is multiple-table inheritance. Rails assumes single-table inheritance and provides really easy support for setting it up. Add a type column to your media_objects table, and add all the columns for each of the specific types of MediaObject to the table. Then make each of your models a sub-class of MediaObject:
class MediaObject < ActiveRecord::Base
end
class CDMediaObject < MediaObject
end
Rails will handle pulling the records out and instantiating the correct subclass, so that when you MediaObject.find(:all) the results will contain a mixture of instances of the various subclasses of MediaObject.
Note this doesn't meet your requirement:
Each of these subtypes needs to be represented with a db table for specific set of metadata that is not entirely common across the subtypes.
Rails is all about convention-over-configuration, and it will make your life very easy if you write your application to it's strengths rather than expecting Rails to adapt to your requirements. Yes, STI will waste space leaving some columns unpopulated for every record. Should you care? Probably not; database storage is cheap, and extra columns won't affect lookup performance if your important columns have indexes on them.
That said, you can setup something very close to multiple-table inheritance, but you probably shouldn't.
I know this question is pretty old but just putting down my thoughts, if somebody lands up here.
In case the DB is postgres, I would suggest use STI along hstore column for storing attributes not common across different objects. This will avoid wasting space in DB yet the attributes can be accessed for different operations.
I would say, it depends on your data: For example, if the differences between the specific media objects do not have to be searchable, you could use a single db table with a TEXT column, say "additional_attributes". With rails, you could then serialize arbitrary data into that column.
If you can't go with that, you could have a general table "media_objects" which "has one :dataset". Within the dataset, you could then store the specifics between CDMediaObject, DVDMediaObject, etc.
A completely different approach would be to go with MongoDB (instead of MySQL) which is a document store. Each document can have a completely different form. The entire document tree is also searchable.
I'm getting ready to start a small project that provides an opportunity to use single table inheritance. As I read through prior post on STI on Stackoverflow there seems to be some strong opinions on sides of the argument.
My application is related to my horse racing hobby. A horse's connections are defined as its current jockey, trainer and owner. The jockey, trainer and owner could be modeled using three separate tables (models/classes) or as one one class with several sub-classes through single table inheritance.
When faced with a decision like this, is there a check list of questions that one can go through to determine what approach is preferable. I'm assuming that using STI would reduce the number of potential joins. What are the other practical considerations?
There are a few things you should think about:
Are the objects, conceptually, children of a single parent?
Don't use single table inheritance just because your classes share some attributes; make sure there is actually an OO inheritance relationship between each of them and an understandable parent class.
Do you need to do database queries on all objects together?
If you want to list the objects together or run aggregate queries on all of the data, you’ll probably want everything in the same database table for speed and simplicity.
Do the objects have similar data but different behavior?
If you have a larger number of model-specific columns, you should consider polymorphic associations instead.
The article linked goes in depth a bit more.