This is a question about structure of a model and where to put static information. I've got a model Membership and the membership model has 7 entries describing unique features among various Memberships. The information is populated by seeds.rb. However, some attributes like click_value are the same across all memberships.
Would I be better off seeding this information and storing it and duplicating it across 7 entries in the database? Or is it better to write a method within the model like the following?
class Membership < ActiveRecord::Base
def click_value
return 0.001
end
end
Is it a matter of personal preference? Is one way better than the other? Just looking for some guidance on structure.
This is mostly a personal preference in my opinion, but I see a benefit in storing it in the database together with other data for the sake of consistency. What if the click_value will eventually change across membership types? In general, an extra float column in the database wouldn't cause significant overhead, would make sure that your data model is consistent, and be future-proof. Writing a method that returns a constant is not a crime, but I wouldn't prefer it over storing the value in the database.
Related
Let's say we have a collection of products, each with their own specifics e.g. price.
We want to issue invoices that contain said products. Using a direct association from Invoice to Product via :has_many is a no-go, since products may change and invoices must be immutable, thus resulting in an alteration of the invoice price, concept, etc.
I first thought of having an intermediate model like InvoiceProduct that would be associated to the Invoice and created from a Product. Each InvoiceProduct would be unique to its parent invoice and immutable. This option would increase the db size significantly as more invoices get issued though, so I think it is not a good option.
I'm now considering adding a serialized field to the invoice model with all the products information that are associated to it, a hash of the collection of items the invoice contains. This way we can have them in an immutable manner even if the product gets modified in the future.
I'm not sure of possible mid or long term downsides to this approach, though. Would like to hear your thoughts about it.
Also, if there's some more obvious approach that I might have overlooked I'd love to hear about it too.
Cheers
In my experience, the main downside of a serialized field approach vs the InvoiceProducts approach described above is decreased flexibility in terms of how you can use your invoice data going forward.
In our case, we have Orders and OrderItems tables in our database and use this data to generate sales analytics reports as well as customer Invoices.
Querying the OrderItem data to generate the sales reports we need is much faster and easier with this approach than it would be if the same data was stored as serialized data in the db.
No.
Serialized columns have no place in a modern application. They are a overused dirty hack from the days before native JSON/JSONB columns were widespread and have only downsides. The only exception to this rule is when you're using application side encryption.
JSON/JSONB columns can be used for a limited number of tasks where the data defies being defined by a fixed schema or if you're just storing raw json responses - but it should not be how you're defining your schema out of convenience because you're just shooting yourself in the foot. Its a special tool for special jobs.
The better alternative is to actually use good relational database design and store the price at the time of sale and everything else in a separate table:
class Order < ApplicationRecord
has_many :line_items
end
# rails g model line_item order:belongs_to product:belongs_to units:decimal unit_price:decimal subtotal:decimal
# The line item model is responsible for each item of an order
# and records the price at the time of order and any discounts applied to that line
class LineItem < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :order
belongs_to :product
end
class Product < ApplicationRecord
has_many :line_items
end
A serialized column is not immutable in any way - its actually more prone to denormalization and corruption as there are no database side constraints to ensure its correctness.
Tables can actually be made immutable in many databases by using triggers.
Advantages:
No violation of 1NF.
A normalized fixed data schema to work with - constraints ensure the validity of the data on the database level.
Joins are an extremely powerful tool and not as expensive as you might think.
You can actually access and make sense of the data outside of the application if needed.
DECIMAL data types. JSON/JSONB only has a single number type that uses IEEE 754 floating point.
You have an actual model and assocations instead of having to deal with raw hashes.
You can query the data in sane queries.
You can generate aggregates on the database level and use tools like materialized views.
I have many different models (close to 20) that share some common attributes but also differ to some degree in others. STI seems attractive at first, but I have no idea how the various models will evolve over time with rapid product development.
A good parallel to our application that comes to mind is Yelp. How would Yelp manage something in Rails? All of the postings have some common attributes like "address". Yet, they differ quite a lot on others. For example, you have a reservation option for restaurants and maybe not for others. Restaurants also have a ton of other attributes like "Alcohol allowed" that don't apply to others. Doing this with STI will get out of hand pretty quickly.
So whats the next best option? HStore with Postgres? I am not comfortable using HStore for anything but small things. HStore solves some problems while introduces others like lack of data types, lack of referential integrity checks etc. I'd like a solid relational database as the foundation to build upon. So in the Yelp case, probably, a restaurant model is where I am going. I've taken a look at suggestions like here - http://mediumexposure.com/multiple-table-inheritance-active-record/, but I am not happy to do so much monkey patching to get something so common going.
So I am wondering what other alternatives exist (if any) or should I just bite the bullet, grind my teeth and copy those common attributes into the 20 models? I am thinking my problems would come from the migration files rather than the code itself. For example, if I setup my migrations to loop through tables and set those attributes on the tables, then would I have mitigated the extent of the problem with having different models?
Am I overlooking something critical that might cause a ton of problems down the road with a separate models?
I see a few options here:
Bite the bullet and create your 20 different models with a lot of the same attributes. It's possible that these models will drift over time - adding new fields to one specific type - and you'll create a 200 column table with STI. Maybe you don't - the future is hard to see, especially with exploratory/agile software.
Store non referential fields in a NoSQL (document) database. Use your relational database for parts of the record that are relational (a user has many reviews and a review has one business), but keep the type specific stuff in a NoSQL database. Keep an external_document_id in your Rails models and external_record_id / external_record_type in your NoSQL document schema so you can still query all bars that allow smoking using whatever NoSQL ORM you end up using.
Create an Attributes model. An attribute belongs_to :parent_object, polymorphic: true with a key and value field. With this approach you might have a base Business model and each business can has_many :attributes. Certain (non-relational?) attributes of the business (allows_smoking) are one Attribute record. An Attribute's key could be a string or could be a numeral you have Ruby constants for. You're essentially using the Attribute entities to create a SQL version of option #2. It might be a good option, and I've used this myself for User or Profile models. (Although there are some performance hits to be aware of with this approach).
I'd really worry about having that many (independent) models for something that sounds subclass-ey. It's possible you might be able to DRY up common behavior/methods by using Concerns (syntactic sugar over the mixin concept, see an awesome SO answer on concerns in Rails 4). You still have your (initial) migration problem, of course.
Adding another option here: Serialized LOB (272). ActiveRecord allows you to do this to an object using serialize:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
serialize :preferences
end
user = User.create(preferences: { "background" => "black", "display" => large })
User.find(user.id).preferences # => { "background" => "black", "display" => large }
(Example code from ActiveRecord::Base docs.)
The important consequence to understand is that attributes stored in a Serialized LOB will not be indexable and certainly not searchable in any performant manner. If you later discover that a column needs to be available as an index you'll have to write [most likely] a Ruby program to perform the transformation (though by default serialization is in Yaml so any Yaml parser will suffice).
The advantage is that you don't have to make any technology changes to your stack in order to apply this pattern. Its easy to moderate - based on the amount of data you have collected - to migrate away from this pattern.
I am not sure exactly what I should name this question. I just started server-side programming and I need some help.
All the tutorials I have read so far on RoR deal with creating a pre-defined table and with pre-defined fields (id, name, email, etc etc). They use ActiveRecord as base class and saving to db is handled automatically by superclass.
What I am trying to program is something that allows user-defined table with fields. So think of this way. The web UI will have an empty table, the user will name the table, and add columns (field), and after that, add rows, and then later save it. How would I implement this? I am not asking for details, just an overview of it. As I said, all the tutorials I have read so far deal with pre-defined tables with fields where the ActiveRecord subclass is predefined.
So in a nutshell, I am asking, how to create tables in db on runtime, and add fields to the tables.
Hope I was clear, if not, please let me know and i will try to elaborate a bit more.
Thanks.
Unless you're building a DB administration tool (and even maybe then), allowing the user direct access to the database layer in the way you're suggesting is probably a bad idea. Apart from issues of stability and security, it'll get really slow if your users are creating lots of tables.
For instance, if you wanted to search for a certain value across 100 of your users' tables, you'd have to run 100 separate queries. The site would get exponentially slower the more user tables that were created.
A saner way to do it might be to have a Table model like this
class Table < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :fields
has_many :rows
end
Every table would have fields attached to it, and rows to store the corresponding data (which would be encoded somehow).
However, as #Aditya rightly points out, this is not really beginner stuff!
I agree with previous answers generally speaking. It's not clear from your question why you want to create a table at runtime. It's not really obvious what the advantage of doing this would be. If you are just trying to store data that seems to fit into a table with rows and columns, why not just store it as an array in a field of your user table. If your user is allowed to create many tables, then you could have something like
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :tables
end
and then each table might have a field to store a serialized array. Or you could go with Alex's suggestion - the best choice really depends on what you are going to do with the data, how often it changes, whether you need to search it and so on ...
You can create a database as shown in tutorials which stores name of tables and their columns name those your user want. Then you can have worker (which can be build using Redis and Resque, here is simple Tut on Resque and Redis) and have those worker run migration (write migration with variables and use params to replace them) for you for new table in DB as soon as new entry is made in database. Tell me if you have questions on this.
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 have an app with an Account model. Each Account belongs_to a sport, which I would usually have as a Sport model and in the DB. But as this isn't really something that will change and is not administered by the end users I thought that it might be better to put it as an integer column in the Account model and map to a hash using a class variable.
However, I need each sport to have many player_positions (which are specific to each sport). So I thought maybe I could do something like:
##player_positions = {:rugby => [position_1, ..., ...]}
Is this good practice for static data like this or should I stick to putting it in the DB as it is relational?
I also thought maybe I could use a yaml file but not sure how I could set that up.
I would stick in the database because you are relating more than one thing to the sport (positions in addition to Account). It makes life easier if you want to use belongs_to and it will allow you to easily use SQL for counts and such (e.g., you can group accounts by sport and get a count of accounts by sport).
I have used an enumerated list of constants in some cases as opposed to tables. For example, I had a simple app with a user type of ADMIN, EDITOR and READER. Rather than put that in a roles table in the DB, I just made those constants on the User class and added a string column to the users table for role.
You don't have to use the database. http://railscasts.com/episodes/189-embedded-association might give you ideas.