In our ASP.Net project we've got a view with 3 (or even more) cascaded combo-boxes,
The question is how should we design our (NHibernate-based) entities given that the relationship between the combo-boxes is relevant only for the sake of building the view, and given that the entire catesian product of the 3 entity types is around 2000 entities.
So the questions are actually:
Should we design the entities as a heirarchy even though the collections has no additional business value (thus making them an overhead for any other scenario)
Should the data be sent as flat rows? keeping the entities more "clean", but requires additional
coding on the view's side
Seperate to consequent requests (e.g only after combo A is selected, combo B's data is fetched from the server)? making the entire process maybe more efficient but at the cost of performance and perhaps caching?
Any thoughts?
First of all, you should not design your model (entities) by one intended UI. Today is it 3 dropdown, tommorow it can be autocomplete nad in a week some new fancy "wow" component, but your model should stay solid - it describes actual, business relations between entities, not your current UI. From this, i think it is quite obvious that you should use combination of 2 and 3.
Related
I just started reading this guide: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CoreData/KeyConcepts.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001075-CH30-SW1
And it basically has (in my opinion) two big contradictions:
I get them both, but basically, if I follow the first "implement a custom class to the entity from which classes representing subentities also inherit"-statement, then ALL my entities will be put in the same table. Which could cause performance issues, according to the NOTE.
How big of a performance hit would I run into of it create a "custom super entity"?
You can use the inheritance mechanism to get a default database structure. From your link:
If you have a number of entities that are similar, you can factor the common properties into a superentity, also known as a parent entity.
There is no contradiction. The documentation is just telling you what the database structure is going to be when you use a certain facility. (And it is the standard database table idiom for inheritance.) Using the entity inheritance mechanism automatically declares and implements default parent-child class inheritance functionality along with a parent table. Otherwise you do any parent-child class inheritance declaration and implementation by hand. Each comes with certain performance and other characteristics.
Design involves tradeoffs between costs and benefits over multiple dimensions. "Performance" itself involves multiple dimensions, and has no meaning outside of given application usage patterns. Other dimensions relevant here include complexity of both construction and maintenance.
If you query about entities as parents sufficiently frequently then it can be better to have all parent data in its own table. But if you sufficiently rarely ask for the parent data while querying about a given child type or if you sufficiently frequently need both child and parent data then it can be better to only have parent data in the child tables or table. But notice that each design performs worse at the other kind of query.
The first is talking about sub-entities. The second is talking about subclasses. These are 2 different hierarchies.
One use for sub-entities is if you have a table where you want to show cells displaying different entities. By making them sub-entities, you can fetch the parent entity and all sub-entities will be returned. This is actually how the Notes app shows the "All Notes" cell above folders, that is actually displaying the Account entity, and both Account and Folder are sub-entities of NoteContainer which is what is fetched. This does mean all of the rows are in the same table, but personally I have not experienced any performance problems but it is something to keep in mind when modifying the entities in other ways like indexes, relations or constraints for example.
I'm not familiar with this quirk of SQLite, but modeling base class/subclass relationships are usually done with different tables. There is one table that represents the base class which contains attributes common to all derivative classes (Vehiclea) and a different table for each subclass which contain attributes unique to that subclass (Cars, Trains, Airplanes).
Performance is no better or worse than any entity normalized across different tables.
I'm struggling to understand the best way to model a particular scenario for a data warehouse.
I have a Person dimension, and a Tenancy dimension. A person could be on 0, 1 or (rarely) multiple tenancies at any one time, and will often have a succession of tenancies over time. A tenancy could have one or more people associated with it. The people associated with a tenancy can change over time, and tenancies generally last for many years.
One option is to add tenancy reference, start and end dates to the Person Dimension as type 2 SCD columns. This would work well as long as I ignore the possibility of multiple concurrent tenancies for a person. However, I have other areas of the data warehouse where I am facing a similar design issue and ignoring multiple relationships is not a possibility.
Another option is to model the relationship as an accumulating snapshot fact table. I'm not sure how well this would work in practice though as I could only link it to one version of a Person and Tenancy (both of which will have type 2 SCD columns) and that would seem to make it impossible to produce current or historical reports that link people and tenancies together.
Are there any recommended ways of modelling this type of relationship?
Edit based on the patient answer and comments given by SQL.Injection
I've produced a basic model showing the model as described by SQL.Injection.
I've moved tenancy start/end dates to the 'junk' dimension (Dim.Tenancy) and added Person tenancy start/end dates to the fact table as I felt that was a more accurate way to describe the relationship.
However, now that I see it visually I don't think that this is fundamentally any different from the model that I started with, other than the fact table is a periodic snapshot rather than an accumulating snapshot. It certainly seems to suffer from the same flaw that whenever I update a type 2 slowly changing attribute in any of the dimensions it is not reflected in the fact.
In order to make this work to reflect current changes and also allow historical reporting it seems that I will have to add a row to the fact table every time a SCD2 change occurs on any of the dimensions. Then, in order to prevent over-counting by joining to multiple versions of the same entity I will also need to add new versions of the other related dimensions so that I have new keys to join on.
I need to think about this some more. I'm beginning to think that the database model is right and that it's my understanding of how the model will be used that is wrong.
In the meantime any comments or suggestions are welcome!
Your problem is similar to to the sale transactions with multiple item. The difference, is that a transaction usually has multiple items and your tenancy fact usually has a single person (the tenant).
Your hydra is born because you are trying to model the tenancy as a dimension, when you should be modeling it as a fact.
The reason why I think you have a tenancy dimension, is because somewhere you have a fact rent. To model the fact rent consider use the same approach i stated above, if two persons are tenants of the same property two fact records should be inserted each month:
1) And now comes some magic (that is no magic at all), split the value of the of the rent by the number of tenants and store it the fact
2) store also the full value of the rent (you don't know how the data scientist is going to use the data)
3) check 1) with the business user (i mean people that build the risk models); there might be some advanced rule on how to do the spliting (a similar thing happens when the cost of shipping is to be divided across multiple item lines of the same order -- it might not be uniformly distributed)
I am developing an ASP.NET MVC4 web application. It uses the entity framework for data access. Many of the pages contain grids. These need to support paging, sorting, filtering and grouping. For performance the grid filtering, sorting, paging etc needs to occur on the database (i.e. the entity framework needs to generate a suitable SQL query). One complication is that the view model to represent the grid rows is built by combining the data from multiple business entities (tables). This could be simply getting the data from an entity a couple of levels down or by calculating it based on the values of related business entities. What approach is recommended to handle this scenario? Does anyone know of a good example on the web? Most have a simple mapping between the view model and business domain model.
Update 28/11 - To further clarify the initial display of the grid and paging works performs well. (See comment below) The problem is how do you handle sorting/ordering (and filtering) when the column that the user clicked on does not map directly to a column on the underlying business table. I am looking for a general solution to achieving this as the system will have approx 100 grids with a number of columns each and trying to handle this on a per column basis will not be maintainable.
If you want to be able to order a calculated field that isn't pre calculated in the database or do any Database Operation against it, then you are going to have to precalulate the value and store it in the database. I don't know anyway around that.
The only other solution is to move the paging and sorting etc to the web server, I am sure you don't really want to do that as you will have to calculate ALL the values to find what order they go in.
So if you want to achieve what you want - I think you will have to do the following, I would love to hear alternate solutions though:
Database Level Changes:
Add a Nullable Column for each calculated field you have in your View Model.
Write a SQL Script the calculates these values.
Set the column to Not Null if necessary
App Level Changes:
In your Add and Edit Pages you will have to calculate these values and Commit them with the rest of the data
You can now query against these at a Database level and use Queryable as you wanted.
I have an ASP.NET MVC site and I am trying to figure out separation of controller and model (repository) and HTML helper functionality.
The goal is to query a database table of photo albums information and display it grouped by year.
The steps are:
Query database and return datatable of the database information.
Convert Datatable to AlbumCollection (List)
Bucket albums by year into ALbumDictionary
Render each year in a seperate HTML table.
Given this request, I could see:
1,2,3 all in the model and the controller simply binds the View to the AlbumDictionary model
or
1,2 in the model and bind to the AlbumCollection and 3 in a HTML ViewHelper
or
1,2 in the model 3 in the controller and bind to the Albumdictionary
Thoughts?
Doing every conversion in the first loop would have the best performance but I am not sure it is the best separation of concerns.
In particular to the above question, generic feedback would be interesting: when does separation of concerns overrule performance or vise versa?
Having been a user of some truly horrendous software that I'm sure looked good from an object-oriented perspective to the designers and was even possibly easy to maintain, I want to point out that the users will come down on the side of performance almost every time.
If the performance difference is negligible, follow the separation of concerns, if it is not, do what it takes to get the best performance. We need to stop worrying as much about the extra few minutes to possibly maintain (maybe touching that code once a year once it's in prod) and more about slowness for all the users every day issue. We like to say that development time is so expensive that we need to minimize it, but the truth is that development time is often far cheaper than the amount of time we are asking our users to waste daily.
I would try to keep the Model clear of anything that has to do with rendering.
I see the grouping by year pretty close to rendering. Thats why I would not put it into Model and also not into the Controller. A common aproach is to have a Model of Poco and DAL/BLL and anonther Model called ViewModel (the Model used by the strongly typed View). This is a good place to prepare the objects for rendering.
In ViewModel I would use Linq to group the albums by years. This will hopefully be fast enough.
I would do the bucketing in the controller only if either:
the bucketing occurs just once and I can do that with one or two simple statements;
It occurs more than once but I can do that with just a AlbumDictionary.BucketByYear() statement.
Otherwise I'd use models to do that.
I am just starting on ASP.NET MVC trying to understand the philosophy first. I think I am pretty clear on the roles played by the controller and the view but I am a little confused on the model part. Some sources say its the domain model, some say its the data model, some say its the objects that are bound to the view.
IMHO these are very different things. So please can someone clear this up once and for all?
The model is "the domain-specific representation of the information on which the application operates". It's not just the data model, as that's a lower level than the MVC pattern thinks about, but (for example) it's the classes that encapsulate the data, and let you perform processing on them.
Scott Guthrie from MS uses this definition in his announcement:
"Models" in a MVC based application
are the components of the application
that are responsible for maintaining
state. Often this state is persisted
inside a database (for example: we
might have a Product class that is
used to represent order data from the
Products table inside SQL).
Further reading:
the MVC Wikipedia article
the MVC pattern on C2
I like to actually add an additional layer to make things clearer. Basically, the "Model" is the thing that is domain specific, and knows how to persist itself (assuming persistence is part of the domain).
IMO, the other layer I referred to I call the ViewModel ... sometimes, the "model" that gets passed to the view really has nothing to do with the domain ... it will have things like validation information, user display info, lookup list values for displaying in the view.
I think that's the disconnect you're having :-)
Your sources of advice are correct when they say it is the domain model. In many instances, it will be quite closely aligned your data model as well.
Where the domain and data models differ is that the data model is relatively static in form (not content) whereas your domain model adds the specific constraints and rules of your domain. For example, in my data model (database) I represent blood pressure as smallints (systolic and diastolic). In my domain model, I have a "blood pressure reading" object that holds values for each of the two readings and that also imposes additional restrictions on the range of acceptable values (e.g. the range for systolic is much smaller than that for smallints). It also adds qualitative judgments on these values (a BP of 150/90 is "high").
The addition of these aspects of the problem domain is what makes the domain model more than just the data model. In some domains (e.g. those that would be better rendered with a fully object-oriented data model and that map poorly on the relational model) you'll find that the two diverge quite significantly. However, all the systems I've created feature a very high degree of overlap. Indeed, I often push a fair number of domain constraints into the data model itself via stored procedures, user-defined types, etc.
You should have a look at this it a step by step tutorial.
From one of the chapters: page 26
In a model-view-controller framework the term “model” refers to the objects that represent the data of
the application, as well as the corresponding domain logic that integrates validation and business rules
with it. The model is in many ways the “heart” of an MVC-based application, and as we’ll see later
fundamentally drives the behavior of it.
Hope its useful.
For example, if you're building a web site to, say, manage operations of a nuclear plant, than the model is the model of the plant, complete with properties for current operating parameters (temperature etc.), methods to start/stop power generation, etc. Mmmm... in this case the model is a actually a projection of a real plant vs. an isolated mode but you got the idea.