I will start out by explaining the current domain model. In North America the car manufacturers produce collectively about 3500 distinct trims (Like a 2016 Ford F150 XLT Crew Cab Long Box, or 2016 Audi A3 4dr AWD quattro Sedan)
I have created a Neo4j graph where every trim for every year is a Node (with a label :Vehicle). I also created a second set of nodes of type Feature (all nodes are labeled :Feature). Feature nodes also have a second label that describes the type of feature ( like :MDL, :DIV, :TRIM, :DRIVE, etc.), and features have a value property. So, for the F150 listed above
VehicleId | FeatureType | FeatureValue
----------|-------------|-------------
"380333" | "BOX" | "regular"
"380333" | "DIV" | "Ford"
"380333" | "TYPE" | "Truck
"380333" | "MDL" | "F-150"
"380333" | "CYLINDERS" | "V-8"
"380333" | "TRIM" | "XL"
etc...
All is good. Now, we have a second concept called FVD (short for Flexible Vehicle Description) which is a simple query syntax that describes a set of vehicles using features. For example, the following FVD (+COUNTRY=US+YR=2016+DIV=Mazda+TYPE=Sport Utility) says all US 2016 Mazda Sport Utilities. I have added FVD nodes to the database (with a label :FVD) with INCLUDES relationships to the same Feature Nodes described above.
Finally, my question is, Given that I START at a certain :Vehicle node, how do I find all :FVD's whose :Feature nodes (through the :INCLUDES relationship) are ALL nodes that the :Vehicle node points to as well. NOTE: The :Vehicle node could point to more features than the :FVD node.
If you are thinking, why not create a direct relationship between the :FVD and the :Vehicle. The reason is because the :FVD represents a Set, the vehicles that come in an out of the Set are dynamic throughout the year, which is why I am keeping this abstraction tier.
Sorry for the lengthy post, just trying to explain the situation. I started to play with "Collect", but I got to the point where I had 2 collections, and I needed to know if one collection was completely in another collection.
Try using the all list predicate. The all list predicate will tests whether a predicate holds for all elements of the list.
I think this will work for your example:
MATCH (v:Vehicle{styleId:"380333"})--(vehFeature:Feature)
WITH collect(vehFeature) as vehFeatures
MATCH (fvd:FVD)-[:INCLUDES]->(fvdFeature:Feature)
WITH fvd, vehFeatures, collect(fvdFeature) as fvdFeatures
WHERE all(vf IN vehFeatures WHERE vf IN fvdFeatures)
RETURN fvd
I got a few - company, location and product details to store in a db.
sample data
company location product
------------------------------
abc hilltop alpha
abc hilltop beta
abc riverside alpha
abc riverside beta
buggy underbridge gama
buggy underbridge theta
buggy underbridge omega
The relationships are multi-valued, as I understand. And the data needs to be normalized as the MVD's are
not derived from a candidate key (company ->> location and company ->> product where company is not a candidate key)
or the union does not make the whole set (company U location < R and so with product).
But my colleague disagrees with me, who insists that for a relation to have multi-valued dependency at least four same values in company column should exist for each company. i.e
t1(company) = t2(company) = t3(company) = t4(company),
for company abc this is true. But for company "buggy", which does only one product in three locations, this is untrue.
For the formal definition and similar examples I refernced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivalued_dependency
and Fourth_normal_form example also on wiki.
I know my colleague is being pedagogy, but I too started seeing the same question after reading the formal definition. (After all these are derived on mathematical basis.)
update: I am not asking how to normalize this data in to 4NF, I think I know that. (I need to break it in to two tables 1) company - location and 2) company - product.
which I have done already.
Can some one explain how this relation is still a MVD even though it does not satisfy the formal definition?
Detailed explanations are very much welcome.
"There exist" says some values exist, and they don't have to be different. EXISTS followed by some name(s) says that there exist(s) some value(s) referred to by the name(s), for which a condition holds. Multiple names can refer to the same value. (FOR ALL can be expressed in terms of EXISTS.)
The notion of MVD can be applied to both variables and values. In fact the form of the linked definition is that a MVD holds in the variable sense when it holds in the value sense "in any legal relation". To know that a particular value is legal, you need business knowledge. You can then show whether that value satisfies an MVD. But to show whether its variable satisfies the MVD you have to show that the MVD is satisfied "in any legal relation" value that the variable can hold. One valid value can tell you that a MVD doesn't hold in (it and) its variable, but it can't tell you that a MVD does hold in its variable. That requires more business knowledge.
You can show that this value violates 4NF by using that definition of MVD. The definition says that a relation variable satisfies a MVD when a certain condition holds "for any valid relation" value:
for all pairs of tuples t1 & t2 in r such that t1[a] = t2[a] there exist tuples t3 & t4 [...]
For what MVD and values for t1 & t2 does your colleague claim there doesn't exist values for t3 & t4? There is no such combination of MVD and values for t1 & t2. Eg for {company} ↠ {product} and t1 & t2 both (buggy, underbridge, gamma), we can take (company, underbridge, gamma) as a value for both t3 & t4, and so on for all other choices for t1 & t2.
Another definition for F ↠ T holding is that binary JD (join dependency) *{F U T, F U (A - T)} holds, ie that the relation is equal to the join of its projections on F U T & F U (A - T). This definition might be more immediately helpful to you & your colleague in that it avoids the terminology that you & they are misinterpreting. Eg your example data is the join of these two of its projections:
company location
--------------------
abc hilltop
abc riverside
buggy underbridge
company product
----------------
abc alpha
abc beta
buggy gamma
buggy theta
buggy omega
So it satisfies the JD *{{company, location}, {company, product}}, so it satisfies the MVDs {company} ↠ {location} and {company} ↠ {product} (among others). (Maybe you will be able to think of examples of relations with zero, one, two, three etc tuples for which one or more (trivial and/or non-trivial) MVDs hold.)
Of course, the two definitions are two different ways of describing the same condition.
PS 1 Whenever a FD F → T holds, the MVD F ↠ T holds. For a relation in BCNF, the MVDs that violate 4NF & 5NF are those not so associated with FDs.
PS 2 A relation variable is meant to hold a tuple if and only if it makes a true statement in business terms when its values are substituted into a given statement template, or predicate. That plus the JD definition for MVD gives conditions for a relation variable satisfying a MVD in business terms. Here our predicate is of the form ...company...location...product.... (Eg company namedcompanyis located atlocationand makes productproduct.) It happens that this MVD holds for a variable when for all valid business situations, FOR ALL company, location, product,
EXISTS product [...company...location...product...]
AND EXISTS location [...company...location...product...]
IMPLIES ...company...location...product...
I'm building a rails app for managing a queue of work items. I have several types of users ("access levels") to whom I want to auto-assign these work items.
The end goal is an "Auto-assign" button on one of my views that will automatically grab the next work item based on a priority, which is defined by the users's access level.
I'm trying to set up a class method in my work_item model to automatically sort work items by type based on the user's access level. I am looking at something like this:
def self.auto_assign_next(access_level)
case
when access_level = 2
where("completed = 'f'").order("requested_time ASC").limit(1)
when access_level > 2
where("completed = 'f'").order("CASE WHEN form='supervisor' THEN 1 WHEN form='installer' THEN 2 WHEN form='repair' THEN 3 WHEN form='mail' THEN 4 WHEN form='hp' THEN 5 ELSE 6 END").limit(1)
end
This isn't very DRY, though. Ideally I'd like the sort order to be configurable by administrators, so maybe setting up a separate table on which the sort order is kept would be best. The problem with that idea is that I have no idea how to pass the priority order on that table to the [postgre]SQL query. I'm new to SQL in general and somewhat lost with this one. Does anybody have any suggestions as to how this should be handled?
One fairly simple approach starts with turning your case statement into a new table, listing form values versus what precedence value they should be sorted by:
id | form | precedence
-----------------------------------
1 | supervisor | 1
2 | installer | 2
(etc)
Create a model for this, say, FormPrecedences (not a great name, but I don't totally grok your data model so pick one that better describes it). Then, your query can look like this (note: I'm assuming your current model is called WorkItems):
when access_level > 2
joins("LEFT JOIN form_precedences ON form_precedences.form = work_items.form")
.where("completed = 'f'")
.order("COALESCE(form_precedences.precedence, 6)")
.limit(1)
The way this works isn't as complicated as it looks. A "left join" in SQL simply takes all the rows of the table on the left (in this case, work_items) and, for each row, finds all the matching rows from the table on the right (form_precedences, where "matching" is defined by the bit after the "ON" keyword: form_precedences.form = work_items.form), and emits one combined row. If no match is found, a LEFT JOIN will still emit a row, but with all the right-hand values being NULL. A normal join would skip any rows with no right-hand match found.
Anyway, with the precedence data joined on to our work items, we can just sort by the precedence value. But, in case no match was found during the join above, that value will be NULL -- so, I use COALESCE (which returns the first of its arguments that's not NULL) to default to a precedence of 6.
Hope that helps!
If I have an object that has_many - how would I go about getting back only the results that are related to the original results related ids?
Example:
tier_tbl
| id | name
1 low
2 med
3 high
randomdata_tbl
| id | tier_id | name
1 1 xxx
2 1 yyy
3 2 zzz
I would like to build a query that returns only, in the case of the above example, rows 1 and 2 from tier_tbl, because only 1 and 2 exist in the tier_id data.
Im new to activerecord, and without a loop, don't know a good way of doing this. Does rails allow for this kind of query building in an easier way?
The reasoning behind this is so that I can list only menu items that relate to the specific object I am dealing with. If the object i am dealing with has only the items contained in randomdata_tbl, there is no reason to display the 3rd tier name. So i'd like to omit it completely. I need to go this direction because of the way the models are set up. The example im dealing with is slightly more complicated.
Thanks
Lets call your first table tiers and second table randoms
If tier has many randoms and you want to find all tiers whoes id present in table randoms, you can do it that way:
# database query only
Tier.joins(:randoms).uniq
or
# with some ruby code
Tier.select{ |t| t.randoms.any? }
Let's assume I have an app about cooking recipes with two fundamental features:
The first one involves the CURRENT recipe that I'm preparing
The second one stores the recipes that I've decided to save
STANDARD SCENARIO
My current recipe is "Cheese Cake" and in RecipeDetailViewController I can see the current ingredients I've added for this recipe:
Sugar
Milk
Butter
etc.
Well, let's say that I'm satisfied from the final result and I decide to save (to log) the recipe I've just prepared.
* click save *
The recipe is now saved (is now logged) and in RecipesHistoryViewController I can see something like this:
Nov 15, 2013 - Cheese Cake
Nov 11, 2013 - Brownie
etc.
Now if I want I can edit the recipe in the history and change Milk to Soy Milk, for example.
The issue it's that editing the recipe in the history SHOULDN'T edit the recipe (and its ingredients) in my current recipe and vice versa. If I edit the current recipe and replace Butter with Peanut Butter it must not edit anyone of the recipe stored in history. Hope I explained myself.
CONSEQUENCES
What this scenario implies? Implies that currently, for satisfing the function of this features, I'm duplicating the recipe and every sub-relationship (ingredients) everytime the user click on "Save Recipe" button. Well it works but I feel it can be something else more clean. With this implemention it turns out that I have TONS of different duplicates Core Data object (sqlite rows) like these:
Object #1, name: Butter, recipe: 1
Object #2, name: Butter, recipe: 4
Object #3, name: Butter, recipe: 3
etc.
Ideas? How can I optimize this model structure?
EDIT 1
I've already thought of creating any RecipeHistory object with an attribute NSString where I could store a json dictionary but I don't know if it's better or not.
EDIT 2
Currently a RecipeHistory object contains this:
+-- RecipeHistory --+
| |
| attributes: |
| - date |
+-------------------+
| relationships: |
| - recipes |
+-------------------+
+----- Recipe ------+
| relationships: |
| - recipeInfo |
| - recipeshistory |
| - ingredients |
+-------------------+
+-- RecipeInfo ----+
| |
| attributes: |
| - name |
+-------------------+
+--- Ingredient ----+
| |
| attributes: |
| - name |
+-------------------+
| relationships: |
| - recipe |
+-------------------+
paulrehkugler is true when he says that duplicating every Recipe object (and its relationships RecipeInfo and Ingredients) when I create a RecipeHistory is going to fill the database with a tons of data but I don't find another solution that allows me flexibility for the future. Maybe in the future I would to create stats about recipes and history and having Core Data objects could prove to be useful. What do you think? I think this is a common scenario in many apps that store history and allow to edit history item.
BIG UPDATE
I have read the answers from some users and I want to explain better the situation.
The example I stated above is just an example, I mean that my app doesn't involve cook/recipe argument but I have used recipes because I think it's pretty okay for my real scenario.
Said this I want to explain that the app NEEDS two sections:
- First: where I can see the CURRENT recipe with related ingredients
- Second: where I can see the recipe I decided to save by tapping a button 'Save Recipe' in the first section
The current recipe found in the first section and a X recipe found in the 'history' section doesn't have NOTHING in common. However the user can edit whatever recipes saved in 'history' section (he can edit name, ingredients, whatever he wants, he can completely edit all things about a recipe found in history section).
This is the reason why I came up duplicating all NSManagedObjects. However, in this way, the database will grow as mad because everytime the user saves the current recipe the object representing the recipe (Recipe) is duplicated and also the relationships the recipes had (ingredients). So there will be TONS of ingredients named 'Butter' for example. You can say me: why the hell you need to have TONS of 'Butter' objects? Well, I need it because ingredients has for example the 'quantity' attribute, so every recipe have ingredients with different quantities.
Anyhow I don't like this approach, even it seems to be the only one. Ask me whatever you want and I'll try to explain every detail.
PS: Sorry for my basic English.
EDIT
Since you must deal with history, and because the events are generated manually by end users, consider changing the approach: rather than storing the current view of the model entities (i.e. recipes, ingredients, and the connections among them) store the individual events initiated by the user. This is called Event Sourcing.
The idea is to record what user does, rather than recording the new state after the user's action. When you need to get the current state, "replay" the events, applying the changes to in-memory structures. In addition to letting you implement the immediate requirements, this would let you restore the state as of a specific date by "replaying" the events up to a certain date. This helps with audits.
You can do it by defining events like this:
CreateIngredient - Adds new ingredient, and gives it a unique ID.
UpdateIngredient - Changes an attribute of an existing ingredient.
DeleteIngredient - Deletes an ingredient from the current state. Deleting an ingredient deletes it from all recipes and recipe histories.
CreateRecipe - Adds a new recipe, and gives it a unique ID.
UpdateRecipeAttribute - Changes an attribute of an existing recipe.
AddIngredientToRecipe - Adds an ingredient to an existing recipe.
DeleteIngredientFromRecipe - Deletes an ingredient from an existing recipe.
DeleteRecipe - Deletes a recipe.
CreateRecipeHistory - Creates a new recipe history from a specific recipe, and gives the history a new ID.
UpdateRecipeHistoryAttribute - Updates an attribute of a specific recipe history.
AddIngredientToRecipeHistory - Adds an ingredient to a recipe history.
DeleteIngredientFromRecipeHistory - Deletes an ingredient from a recipe history.
You can store the individual events in a single table using Core Data APIs. Add a class that processes events in order, and creates the current state of the model. The events will come from two places - the event store backed by Core Data, and from the user interface. This would let you keep a single event processor, and a single model with the details of the current state of recipes, ingredients, and recipe histories.
Replaying the events should happen only when the user consults the history, right?
No, that is not what happens: you read the whole history on start-up into the current "view", and then you send the new events both to the view and to the DB for persistence.
When users need to consult the history (specifically, when they need to find out how the model looked as of a specific date in the past) you need to replay the events partially, up until the date of interest.
Since the events are generated by hand, there wouldn't be too many of them: I would estimate the count in the thousands at the most - that's for a list of 100 recipes with 10 ingredients each. Processing an event on a modern hardware should be in microseconds, so reading and replaying the entire event log should be in the milliseconds.
Furthermore, do you know any link that shows an example of how to use Event Sourcing in a Core Data application? [...] For example, should I need to get rid of RecipeHistory NSManagedObject?
I do not know of a good reference implementation for event sourcing on iOS. That wouldn't be too different from implementing it on other systems. You would need to get rid of all tables that you currently have, replacing it with a single table that looks like this:
The attributes would be as follows:
EventId - Unique ID of this event. This is assigned automatically on insertion, and never changes.
EntityId - Unique ID of the entity created or modified by this event. This ID is assigned automatically by a Create... processor, and never changes.
EventType - A short string representing the name of this event type.
EventTime - The time the event has happened.
EventData - A serialized representation of the event - this can be binary or textual.
The last item can be replaced for a "denormalized" group of columns representing a superset of attributes used by the 12 event types above. This is entirely up to you - this table is merely one possible way of storing your events. It does not have to be Core Data - in fact, it does not even need to be in a database (although it makes things a little easier).
I think when a row in RecipesHistoryViewController is selected to modification, we can optimize the Save process with two options:
Let the user chooses if a new row must be saved or an update may happen. Having a Save New button to create a new row in Recipe and an Update button to update the current selected row.
To trace the changes have been made to a recipe (when update happens), I will try to log only changes of the recipe. Using EAV pattern will be an option.
As a hint: Comma separated values of ingredient name could be used as old and new values, when
inserting a row in RecipeHistory table, the sample may helps.
About the BIG UPDATE:
Assuming that the real application have a database for persistent operation, some suggestions may be helpful.
The current recipe found in the first section and a X recipe found in
the 'history' section doesn't have NOTHING in common
Leads the natural way of having no relation between Current and In-History recipe, so
trying to create a relation will be vain. With no relation the design will not be in normal form, redundancy will be inevitable.Flowing the approach there will be many records, in the case
We can limit any user's saved recipes in a predefined number.
Another solution to optimize performance of recipe table would be range
partitioning the table based on creation date field (let a data
base administrator be involved).
Another suggestion is to have a separate table for ingredient
concept. Having ingredient, recipe, recipe-ingredient
tables will reduce redundancy.
Using NoSql
If relations are not trivial part of the applications logic, I mean if your are not going to be ended in complex queries like "Which ingredients have been used more than X times in recipes that have less than total Y ingredients and Milk is not one of them" or analytical procedures then,have a look at NoSql databases and comparison of them.
They offer being non-relational, distributed, open-source, schema-free, easy replication support, simple API, huge amount of data and horizontally scalable.
For a basic example of a document based database: Having couchdb installed on my local machine(port number 5984) creating recipe database(table) on couchdb will be done by sending an standard HTTP request (using curl) like:
curl -X PUT http://127.0.0.1:5984/recipe
Dropping recipe table:
curl -X DELETE http://127.0.0.1:5984/recipe
Adding a recipe:
curl -X PUT http://127.0.0.1:5984/recipe/myFirstRecipe -d
'{"name":"Cheese Cake","description":"i am using couchDB for my recipes",
"ingredients": [
"Milk",
"Sugar"
],}'
Getting myFirstRecipe record(document)
curl -X GET http://127.0.0.1:5984/recipe/myFirstRecipe
No need of classical server side process like object relation mapping, data base driver, etc
BTW using Nosql will have short comings you need to consider, like here and here.
As I see it, your problem is more conceptual than model structure related.
My idea for your model is:
+*******+
Recipe
-----------------
-----------------
properties:
-----------------
- isDraft - BOOL
- name - NSString
- creationDate - NSDate
-----------------
-----------------
relationships:
-----------------
- ingredients - to-many with Ingredient
-----------------
+*******+
+*******+
Ingredient
-----------------
-----------------
properties:
-----------------
- name - NSString
-----------------
-----------------
relationships:
-----------------
- recipes - to-many with Recipe
-----------------
+*******+
Now, Lets call your "current" recipe a draft (a user may have many drafts).
As you can see, you can now display your recipes with a single fetched results controller (FRC)
The fetch request will look like this:
NSFetchRequest* r = [NSFetchRequest fetchRequestWithEntityName:#"Recipe"];
[r setFetchBatchSize:25];
NSSortDescriptor* sortCreationDate = [NSSortDescriptor sortDescriptorWithKey:#"creationDate" ascending:NO];
[r setSortDescriptors:#[sortCreationDate]];
you can section your data on the isDraft property:
NSFetchedResultsController* frc = [[NSFetchedResultsController alloc] initWithFetchRequest:r
managedObjectContext:context
sectionNameKeyPath:#"isDraft"
cacheName:nil];
Remember to give appropriate titles to your sections as to not confuse the user.
Now, all you have left is add some specific functionality like:
create new recipe
save
save draft
edit recipe (draft or not)
if draft offer to save as complete recipe
else, save the actual recipe
if you like, you might add a "save as" option
create copy (the user is aware that he might introduce redundant data if he saves the same recipe more than once)
In any case the user experience should be consistent.
Meaning:
While the user is editing/adding an object, this object should not change "under his feet".
If a user is adding a new recipe, he then might wish to save it as draft, or as a complete recipe.
When he save, in either case, he might still wish to continue editing it. and so, no new object need be created.
If you like to add versioning for your recipes, you will need to add an entity like RecipeHistory related to a single recipe. this entity will record changes on each committed change in a complete recipe object (use changedValues of NSManagedObject or check against the existing/committed values).
You may serialise and store the data as you see fit.
So you can see, its more of a conceptual issue (how you access your data) than it is a modelling issue.
There are a few questions that need to be answered:
Is there a limit to the number of "history items" for a recipe or is it really necessary to keep all the versions of a recipe around?
When is a modification just a change of an existing recipe and when does the change result in a new recipe? For example, should the user be allowed to change a "cheese cake" recipe into a "meat loaf" recipe by completely replacing every ingredient and the title?
The answers to these questions are important when planing your data model. For example, ask yourself if this would be a valid use case for your app: The user creates a "Basic Cake" recipe that contains sugar, flour and eggs. The user now wants to take this "Basic Cake" recipe as a template to create a "Cheese Cake", a "Pound Cake" and a "Carrot Cake" recipe. Is that a valid use case?
If so, every time you save a recipe, it basically creates a completely new, independent recipe because the user is allowed to change everything and thus turn a cheese cake into a meat loaf.
However, I think that would be unexpected behavior for the user. In my opinion the user creates a "Cheese Cake" recipe and then might want to trace the changes to that one recipe and not turn it into something completely different.
This is what I would suggest:
Instead of a RecipeHistory owning Recipes, change your data model so that Recipes have multiple RecipeVersions. That way, users can explicitly create new recipes and then track the changes to that one recipe. Also, users would not be allowed to edit a RecipeVersion directly, but instead could "revert" their recipe to a specific version and then edit that.
Make Ingredients unique: "Butter", "Milk" and "Flour" exist exactly once in the database and are only references by the different recipes. That way, you will not have duplicates in your database and saving just the reference will take up less disk space than saving the name of the ingredient again and again.
Allow your users to create a new recipe based on an existing Recipe(Version). That way you give your users the ability to "base" a new recipe on an existing one without complicating your app and your data model.
This is my suggested data model:
+----- Recipe ------+
| attributes: |
| - name |
| relationships: |
| - recipeVersions |
+-------------------+
+-- RecipeVersion ----+
| attributes: |
| - timestamp |
+----------------------+
| relationships: |
| - recipe |
| - ingredients |
+----------------------+
+--- Ingredient ----+
| attributes: |
| - name |
+-------------------+
| relationships: |
| - recipeVersions |
+-------------------+
Enjoy.
You don't need to duplicate all of the ingredient objects. Instead, just change the relationships so that recipes have many ingredients and ingredients can be in many recipes. Then when you create a duplicate recipe you just connect to the existing ingredients.
This would also make it easier to list the recipes that use an (or some combination of) ingredients.
You should also consider your UI/UX - should it be a full duplicate? Or should you allow the user to create 'alternatives' within each recipe (which just list a set of replacement ingredients).
It's a tradeoff between storage size and retrieval time.
If you duplicate each recipe every time the user clicks the "Save Recipe" button, you duplicate a lot of data in the database.
If you create a RecipeHistory object that has a Recipe and a list of changes, it takes longer to retrieve the data and populate your View Controllers, because you have to reconstruct a full Recipe in memory.
I'm not sure which is easier - whichever suits your use case is probably best.
Not sure I am clear on the problem you are trying to solve but I would start by modelling the Recipe and Ingredients and keep them separate from the actual mix and method which may change as the cook experiments. With some smart application logic you could only track the changes in each version rather than make a new copy. For example if the user decides to try a new version of a recipe then by default show the previous versions (or allow the user to select a version) Method and RecipeIngredients and if any changes are made save these changes as new Method and RecipeIngredient associated with the RecipeVersion.
This approach will use less storage but requires much more complicated application logic, for example swapping an ingredient would setting the quantity to 0 for the ones being replaced and adding new records for the new ones. Simply duplicating the previous (or user selected) version is not going to use much space, these are small records, and will be much much simpler to implement.
I believe it would be better to define ingredient table to have ingredientID and ingredientDisplayName, and in recipie history table store RecipieID, HistoryDate, IngredientArray.
if in ingredient table,
id:1 is Butter
id:2 is Milk
id:3 is cheese
id:4 is Sugar
id 5 is Soymilk
then in history table
for recipe 1: Cheese Cake, data Nov 15, IngredientArray: {1,2,3,4}
if on Nov 16 Cheese cake changes to have soy milk instead of milk then on that date IngredientArray is {1,2,3,5} . Many database has array column option or alternately could be a comma separated string or a Json document.
Its better to keep the ingredient list in-memory to do fast lookup to get ingredient names from list.
maybe I did not understand your question, but do you need to change the name of butter by editing? Why not just delete butter from that one recipe and add peanut butter to it. That way you do not change butter to peanut butter for al your other recipes that are linked to it? And with new recipes you can select peanut butter or butter.
Just to be clear, we are talking about frontend?
First, like suggest by Mohsen Heydari, on SQL rdbms, you should create a table between many-to-many connections to make two one to many for performance.
So you want a historic
+-- RecipeHistory --+
| |
| attributes: |
| - id |
| - date |
| - new name? |
| - notes ?? |
| - recipe-id |
+-------------------+
| relationships: |
| - recipes |
+-------------------+
+----- Recipe ------+
| attributes: |
| - id |
| - name |
| - discription |
| - date |
| - notes | #may be useful?
| - Modifiable | #this field is false if in history, else true,
+-------------------+
| relationships: |
| recipe-ingredient |
+-------------------+
+-Recipe-ingridient-+
| attributes: |
| id |
| recipe-id |
| ingridient-id |
| quantity |
+-------------------+
+--- Ingredient ----+
| |
| attributes: |
| - id |
| - name |
+-------------------+
| relationships: |
| -recipe-ingredient|
+-------------------+
Now if modifiable field on Recipe = True it belongs on the MainPage
If its false, it belongs on the historic page
After finding a recipe you want, you can query the ingredients by its recipe-id using the Recipe-Ingredient table, or Recipe by Ingredients the same way.
Another option less space hungry would be create a Recipe history, and create a Modified recipe table -> which takes a base recipe ID,
And map it to -> Main Recipe ID, Discarded Ingredients and New Ingredients, if you want this solution explained just ask