Cities and States (a few data): single table or splitted?
I am designing a DB schema and I need to store cities and states. I expect only a few rows, let's say, 20 cities. Example:
id | city | state
1 | Rio de Janeiro | RJ
2 | Niteroi | RJ
3 | Cabo Frio | RJ
4 | Nova Friburgo | RJ
5 | Campos | RJ
6 | São Paulo | SP
7 | Santos | SP
8 | Santo André | SP
As I said, less than 20 cities and only 2 or 3 states ( CHAR(2) ). Regarding performance, which is the best: A single table like the above example, or 2 tables with relationship between both?
PS: I'm not expecting any SELECT ... WHERE 'state'... I'll only select by city and then display which state it belongs to.
Thanks
mysql select foreign-key primary-key
edited Jan 6 '16 at 2:24
miracle173
6,5671838
asked Jan 6 '16 at 0:27
gugabguerragugabguerra
1112
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 27 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
I am designing a DB schema and I need to store cities and states. I expect only a few rows, let's say, 20 cities. Example:
id | city | state
1 | Rio de Janeiro | RJ
2 | Niteroi | RJ
3 | Cabo Frio | RJ
4 | Nova Friburgo | RJ
5 | Campos | RJ
6 | São Paulo | SP
7 | Santos | SP
8 | Santo André | SP
As I said, less than 20 cities and only 2 or 3 states ( CHAR(2) ). Regarding performance, which is the best: A single table like the above example, or 2 tables with relationship between both?
PS: I'm not expecting any SELECT ... WHERE 'state'... I'll only select by city and then display which state it belongs to.
Thanks
mysql select foreign-key primary-key
edited Jan 6 '16 at 2:24
miracle173
6,5671838
asked Jan 6 '16 at 0:27
gugabguerragugabguerra
1112
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 27 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
It depends entirely on what you do with them. But in any event, you should not be doing DB design worrying about performance at this step. You design the DB first, according to the data relations. Do this right and the performance will take care of itself 90% of the time. Only later when you know if you have a performance problem, should you start worrying about it.
– RBarryYoung
Jan 6 '16 at 0:35
When the table contains very few rows and does not change frequently you can denormalize it and use single table instead of two. You can add a new data field geo_level to choose between the state level or city level, if you need it in future.
– rathishDBA
Jan 6 '16 at 6:27
add a comment |
I am designing a DB schema and I need to store cities and states. I expect only a few rows, let's say, 20 cities. Example:
id | city | state
1 | Rio de Janeiro | RJ
2 | Niteroi | RJ
3 | Cabo Frio | RJ
4 | Nova Friburgo | RJ
5 | Campos | RJ
6 | São Paulo | SP
7 | Santos | SP
8 | Santo André | SP
As I said, less than 20 cities and only 2 or 3 states ( CHAR(2) ). Regarding performance, which is the best: A single table like the above example, or 2 tables with relationship between both?
PS: I'm not expecting any SELECT ... WHERE 'state'... I'll only select by city and then display which state it belongs to.
Thanks
mysql select foreign-key primary-key
edited Jan 6 '16 at 2:24
miracle173
6,5671838
asked Jan 6 '16 at 0:27
gugabguerragugabguerra
1112
I am designing a DB schema and I need to store cities and states. I expect only a few rows, let's say, 20 cities. Example:
id | city | state
1 | Rio de Janeiro | RJ
2 | Niteroi | RJ
3 | Cabo Frio | RJ
4 | Nova Friburgo | RJ
5 | Campos | RJ
6 | São Paulo | SP
7 | Santos | SP
8 | Santo André | SP
As I said, less than 20 cities and only 2 or 3 states ( CHAR(2) ). Regarding performance, which is the best: A single table like the above example, or 2 tables with relationship between both?
PS: I'm not expecting any SELECT ... WHERE 'state'... I'll only select by city and then display which state it belongs to.
Thanks
mysql select foreign-key primary-key
mysql select foreign-key primary-key
edited Jan 6 '16 at 2:24
miracle173
6,5671838
asked Jan 6 '16 at 0:27
gugabguerragugabguerra
1112
edited Jan 6 '16 at 2:24
miracle173
6,5671838
asked Jan 6 '16 at 0:27
gugabguerragugabguerra
1112
edited Jan 6 '16 at 2:24
miracle173
6,5671838
edited Jan 6 '16 at 2:24
miracle173
6,5671838
edited Jan 6 '16 at 2:24
miracle173
6,5671838
6,5671838
asked Jan 6 '16 at 0:27
gugabguerragugabguerra
1112
asked Jan 6 '16 at 0:27
gugabguerragugabguerra
1112
asked Jan 6 '16 at 0:27
gugabguerragugabguerra
1112
1112
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 27 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 27 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
1
It depends entirely on what you do with them. But in any event, you should not be doing DB design worrying about performance at this step. You design the DB first, according to the data relations. Do this right and the performance will take care of itself 90% of the time. Only later when you know if you have a performance problem, should you start worrying about it.
– RBarryYoung
Jan 6 '16 at 0:35
When the table contains very few rows and does not change frequently you can denormalize it and use single table instead of two. You can add a new data field geo_level to choose between the state level or city level, if you need it in future.
– rathishDBA
Jan 6 '16 at 6:27
add a comment |
1
It depends entirely on what you do with them. But in any event, you should not be doing DB design worrying about performance at this step. You design the DB first, according to the data relations. Do this right and the performance will take care of itself 90% of the time. Only later when you know if you have a performance problem, should you start worrying about it.
– RBarryYoung
Jan 6 '16 at 0:35
When the table contains very few rows and does not change frequently you can denormalize it and use single table instead of two. You can add a new data field geo_level to choose between the state level or city level, if you need it in future.
– rathishDBA
Jan 6 '16 at 6:27
1
1
It depends entirely on what you do with them. But in any event, you should not be doing DB design worrying about performance at this step. You design the DB first, according to the data relations. Do this right and the performance will take care of itself 90% of the time. Only later when you know if you have a performance problem, should you start worrying about it.
– RBarryYoung
Jan 6 '16 at 0:35
It depends entirely on what you do with them. But in any event, you should not be doing DB design worrying about performance at this step. You design the DB first, according to the data relations. Do this right and the performance will take care of itself 90% of the time. Only later when you know if you have a performance problem, should you start worrying about it.
– RBarryYoung
Jan 6 '16 at 0:35
When the table contains very few rows and does not change frequently you can denormalize it and use single table instead of two. You can add a new data field geo_level to choose between the state level or city level, if you need it in future.
– rathishDBA
Jan 6 '16 at 6:27
When the table contains very few rows and does not change frequently you can denormalize it and use single table instead of two. You can add a new data field geo_level to choose between the state level or city level, if you need it in future.
– rathishDBA
Jan 6 '16 at 6:27
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
CHAR(2) CHARACTER SET latin1 takes only 2 bytes. You are not going to improve significantly on that by using an id TINYINT UNSIGNED (1 byte) to 'normalize' it.
Splitting into 2 tables is something I call "over-normalizing".
JOINs are pretty cheap, but they are not free. This is a disadvantage of the 2-table approach.
While you are asking this question, I suggest you implement it both ways, see how big the tables are, see how fast the queries are, etc. Use it as a learning exercise.
Yes, there will be other cases where 2 tables is better.
answered Jan 6 '16 at 0:48
Rick JamesRick James
43.6k22259
1
Thanks! I agree with you in all aspects. 2 tables will demand more work to the programmer and brings no practical improvement for the DB. Over-normalizing was perfect (lol) ! I have pretty much the same information but in the oposite situation in another software: lots of select statements by 'state' column to find state's full name, some other information and cities belonging to it... so in this case 2 table is better. Then I'll also take your suggestion and implement both ways as a learning exercise. Thanks!!
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 1:14
1
:) Even in the case of a separate table for States, I would argue for the key to beRJ,SP, etc, not1,2, etc.
– Rick James
Jan 6 '16 at 3:57
Good point! I'll check it out.
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 5:45
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125319%2fcities-and-states-a-few-data-single-table-or-splitted%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
CHAR(2) CHARACTER SET latin1 takes only 2 bytes. You are not going to improve significantly on that by using an id TINYINT UNSIGNED (1 byte) to 'normalize' it.
Splitting into 2 tables is something I call "over-normalizing".
JOINs are pretty cheap, but they are not free. This is a disadvantage of the 2-table approach.
While you are asking this question, I suggest you implement it both ways, see how big the tables are, see how fast the queries are, etc. Use it as a learning exercise.
Yes, there will be other cases where 2 tables is better.
answered Jan 6 '16 at 0:48
Rick JamesRick James
43.6k22259
1
Thanks! I agree with you in all aspects. 2 tables will demand more work to the programmer and brings no practical improvement for the DB. Over-normalizing was perfect (lol) ! I have pretty much the same information but in the oposite situation in another software: lots of select statements by 'state' column to find state's full name, some other information and cities belonging to it... so in this case 2 table is better. Then I'll also take your suggestion and implement both ways as a learning exercise. Thanks!!
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 1:14
1
:) Even in the case of a separate table for States, I would argue for the key to beRJ,SP, etc, not1,2, etc.
– Rick James
Jan 6 '16 at 3:57
Good point! I'll check it out.
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 5:45
add a comment |
CHAR(2) CHARACTER SET latin1 takes only 2 bytes. You are not going to improve significantly on that by using an id TINYINT UNSIGNED (1 byte) to 'normalize' it.
Splitting into 2 tables is something I call "over-normalizing".
JOINs are pretty cheap, but they are not free. This is a disadvantage of the 2-table approach.
While you are asking this question, I suggest you implement it both ways, see how big the tables are, see how fast the queries are, etc. Use it as a learning exercise.
Yes, there will be other cases where 2 tables is better.
answered Jan 6 '16 at 0:48
Rick JamesRick James
43.6k22259
1
Thanks! I agree with you in all aspects. 2 tables will demand more work to the programmer and brings no practical improvement for the DB. Over-normalizing was perfect (lol) ! I have pretty much the same information but in the oposite situation in another software: lots of select statements by 'state' column to find state's full name, some other information and cities belonging to it... so in this case 2 table is better. Then I'll also take your suggestion and implement both ways as a learning exercise. Thanks!!
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 1:14
1
:) Even in the case of a separate table for States, I would argue for the key to beRJ,SP, etc, not1,2, etc.
– Rick James
Jan 6 '16 at 3:57
Good point! I'll check it out.
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 5:45
add a comment |
CHAR(2) CHARACTER SET latin1 takes only 2 bytes. You are not going to improve significantly on that by using an id TINYINT UNSIGNED (1 byte) to 'normalize' it.
Splitting into 2 tables is something I call "over-normalizing".
JOINs are pretty cheap, but they are not free. This is a disadvantage of the 2-table approach.
While you are asking this question, I suggest you implement it both ways, see how big the tables are, see how fast the queries are, etc. Use it as a learning exercise.
Yes, there will be other cases where 2 tables is better.
answered Jan 6 '16 at 0:48
Rick JamesRick James
43.6k22259
CHAR(2) CHARACTER SET latin1 takes only 2 bytes. You are not going to improve significantly on that by using an id TINYINT UNSIGNED (1 byte) to 'normalize' it.
Splitting into 2 tables is something I call "over-normalizing".
JOINs are pretty cheap, but they are not free. This is a disadvantage of the 2-table approach.
While you are asking this question, I suggest you implement it both ways, see how big the tables are, see how fast the queries are, etc. Use it as a learning exercise.
Yes, there will be other cases where 2 tables is better.
answered Jan 6 '16 at 0:48
Rick JamesRick James
43.6k22259
answered Jan 6 '16 at 0:48
Rick JamesRick James
43.6k22259
answered Jan 6 '16 at 0:48
Rick JamesRick James
43.6k22259
answered Jan 6 '16 at 0:48
Rick JamesRick James
43.6k22259
43.6k22259
1
Thanks! I agree with you in all aspects. 2 tables will demand more work to the programmer and brings no practical improvement for the DB. Over-normalizing was perfect (lol) ! I have pretty much the same information but in the oposite situation in another software: lots of select statements by 'state' column to find state's full name, some other information and cities belonging to it... so in this case 2 table is better. Then I'll also take your suggestion and implement both ways as a learning exercise. Thanks!!
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 1:14
1
:) Even in the case of a separate table for States, I would argue for the key to beRJ,SP, etc, not1,2, etc.
– Rick James
Jan 6 '16 at 3:57
Good point! I'll check it out.
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 5:45
add a comment |
1
Thanks! I agree with you in all aspects. 2 tables will demand more work to the programmer and brings no practical improvement for the DB. Over-normalizing was perfect (lol) ! I have pretty much the same information but in the oposite situation in another software: lots of select statements by 'state' column to find state's full name, some other information and cities belonging to it... so in this case 2 table is better. Then I'll also take your suggestion and implement both ways as a learning exercise. Thanks!!
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 1:14
1
:) Even in the case of a separate table for States, I would argue for the key to beRJ,SP, etc, not1,2, etc.
– Rick James
Jan 6 '16 at 3:57
Good point! I'll check it out.
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 5:45
1
1
Thanks! I agree with you in all aspects. 2 tables will demand more work to the programmer and brings no practical improvement for the DB. Over-normalizing was perfect (lol) ! I have pretty much the same information but in the oposite situation in another software: lots of select statements by 'state' column to find state's full name, some other information and cities belonging to it... so in this case 2 table is better. Then I'll also take your suggestion and implement both ways as a learning exercise. Thanks!!
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 1:14
Thanks! I agree with you in all aspects. 2 tables will demand more work to the programmer and brings no practical improvement for the DB. Over-normalizing was perfect (lol) ! I have pretty much the same information but in the oposite situation in another software: lots of select statements by 'state' column to find state's full name, some other information and cities belonging to it... so in this case 2 table is better. Then I'll also take your suggestion and implement both ways as a learning exercise. Thanks!!
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 1:14
1
1
:) Even in the case of a separate table for States, I would argue for the key to be
RJ, SP, etc, not 1, 2, etc.– Rick James
Jan 6 '16 at 3:57
:) Even in the case of a separate table for States, I would argue for the key to be
RJ, SP, etc, not 1, 2, etc.– Rick James
Jan 6 '16 at 3:57
Good point! I'll check it out.
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 5:45
Good point! I'll check it out.
– gugabguerra
Jan 6 '16 at 5:45
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125319%2fcities-and-states-a-few-data-single-table-or-splitted%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
It depends entirely on what you do with them. But in any event, you should not be doing DB design worrying about performance at this step. You design the DB first, according to the data relations. Do this right and the performance will take care of itself 90% of the time. Only later when you know if you have a performance problem, should you start worrying about it.
– RBarryYoung
Jan 6 '16 at 0:35
When the table contains very few rows and does not change frequently you can denormalize it and use single table instead of two. You can add a new data field geo_level to choose between the state level or city level, if you need it in future.
– rathishDBA
Jan 6 '16 at 6:27