Options for structuring multiple associations to a record
This is 101 level stuff and I promise to read a book later, but in the meantime, given the following three tables:
Product
---------
ProductId (uniqueidentifier)
User
---------
UserId (uniqueidentifier)
Company
---------
CompanyId (uniqueidentifier)
If a Product can be assigned to different "owners" (i.e., a User, a Company, etc.), I can think of two table structures to accomplish this:
Solution 1 (1 table for all owners):
ProductAssignment
---------
ProductId,
OwnerId (constraint to ensure either UserId, CompanyId, etc.)
Solution 2 (1 table for each owner):
UserProduct
---------
UserId,
ProductId
CompanyProduct
---------
CompanyId,
ProductId
Solution 2 offers more of a "proper" model, but we have a lot of these scenarios and it's going to result in our database being littered with many dozens of these types of tables. It's also a pain to code for since I would need to create a new, redundant query each time a new owner table is added. I feel the maintenance and coding would be much easier for Solution 1, but maybe I'm wrong?
For what it's worth, most of the data access will be through LINQ to SQL (ASP.NET Web Forms project), and Entity Framework (ASP.NET MVC project). Very few sprocs and such.
- What pros and cons am I missing for each solution?
- Will bad things happen to me if I go with Solution 1? i.e., guys in black suits and sun glasses showing up at the office to make me "disappear?"
- Is there a Solution 3?
sql-server-2012 database-design architecture
asked May 19 '15 at 13:57
StronglyTypedStronglyTyped
14016
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 7 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 |
This is 101 level stuff and I promise to read a book later, but in the meantime, given the following three tables:
Product
---------
ProductId (uniqueidentifier)
User
---------
UserId (uniqueidentifier)
Company
---------
CompanyId (uniqueidentifier)
If a Product can be assigned to different "owners" (i.e., a User, a Company, etc.), I can think of two table structures to accomplish this:
Solution 1 (1 table for all owners):
ProductAssignment
---------
ProductId,
OwnerId (constraint to ensure either UserId, CompanyId, etc.)
Solution 2 (1 table for each owner):
UserProduct
---------
UserId,
ProductId
CompanyProduct
---------
CompanyId,
ProductId
Solution 2 offers more of a "proper" model, but we have a lot of these scenarios and it's going to result in our database being littered with many dozens of these types of tables. It's also a pain to code for since I would need to create a new, redundant query each time a new owner table is added. I feel the maintenance and coding would be much easier for Solution 1, but maybe I'm wrong?
For what it's worth, most of the data access will be through LINQ to SQL (ASP.NET Web Forms project), and Entity Framework (ASP.NET MVC project). Very few sprocs and such.
- What pros and cons am I missing for each solution?
- Will bad things happen to me if I go with Solution 1? i.e., guys in black suits and sun glasses showing up at the office to make me "disappear?"
- Is there a Solution 3?
sql-server-2012 database-design architecture
asked May 19 '15 at 13:57
StronglyTypedStronglyTyped
14016
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 7 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
Can a product have 2 owners (a user and a company)? The 2nd method does not forbid it.
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:06
Yes, a product can have 2 owners. In solution 1, there would be a ProductAssignmentId PK.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:58
add a comment |
This is 101 level stuff and I promise to read a book later, but in the meantime, given the following three tables:
Product
---------
ProductId (uniqueidentifier)
User
---------
UserId (uniqueidentifier)
Company
---------
CompanyId (uniqueidentifier)
If a Product can be assigned to different "owners" (i.e., a User, a Company, etc.), I can think of two table structures to accomplish this:
Solution 1 (1 table for all owners):
ProductAssignment
---------
ProductId,
OwnerId (constraint to ensure either UserId, CompanyId, etc.)
Solution 2 (1 table for each owner):
UserProduct
---------
UserId,
ProductId
CompanyProduct
---------
CompanyId,
ProductId
Solution 2 offers more of a "proper" model, but we have a lot of these scenarios and it's going to result in our database being littered with many dozens of these types of tables. It's also a pain to code for since I would need to create a new, redundant query each time a new owner table is added. I feel the maintenance and coding would be much easier for Solution 1, but maybe I'm wrong?
For what it's worth, most of the data access will be through LINQ to SQL (ASP.NET Web Forms project), and Entity Framework (ASP.NET MVC project). Very few sprocs and such.
- What pros and cons am I missing for each solution?
- Will bad things happen to me if I go with Solution 1? i.e., guys in black suits and sun glasses showing up at the office to make me "disappear?"
- Is there a Solution 3?
sql-server-2012 database-design architecture
asked May 19 '15 at 13:57
StronglyTypedStronglyTyped
14016
This is 101 level stuff and I promise to read a book later, but in the meantime, given the following three tables:
Product
---------
ProductId (uniqueidentifier)
User
---------
UserId (uniqueidentifier)
Company
---------
CompanyId (uniqueidentifier)
If a Product can be assigned to different "owners" (i.e., a User, a Company, etc.), I can think of two table structures to accomplish this:
Solution 1 (1 table for all owners):
ProductAssignment
---------
ProductId,
OwnerId (constraint to ensure either UserId, CompanyId, etc.)
Solution 2 (1 table for each owner):
UserProduct
---------
UserId,
ProductId
CompanyProduct
---------
CompanyId,
ProductId
Solution 2 offers more of a "proper" model, but we have a lot of these scenarios and it's going to result in our database being littered with many dozens of these types of tables. It's also a pain to code for since I would need to create a new, redundant query each time a new owner table is added. I feel the maintenance and coding would be much easier for Solution 1, but maybe I'm wrong?
For what it's worth, most of the data access will be through LINQ to SQL (ASP.NET Web Forms project), and Entity Framework (ASP.NET MVC project). Very few sprocs and such.
- What pros and cons am I missing for each solution?
- Will bad things happen to me if I go with Solution 1? i.e., guys in black suits and sun glasses showing up at the office to make me "disappear?"
- Is there a Solution 3?
sql-server-2012 database-design architecture
sql-server-2012 database-design architecture
asked May 19 '15 at 13:57
StronglyTypedStronglyTyped
14016
asked May 19 '15 at 13:57
StronglyTypedStronglyTyped
14016
edited May 20 '15 at 12:56
StronglyTyped
asked May 19 '15 at 13:57
StronglyTypedStronglyTyped
14016
asked May 19 '15 at 13:57
StronglyTypedStronglyTyped
14016
asked May 19 '15 at 13:57
StronglyTypedStronglyTyped
14016
14016
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 7 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♦ 7 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
Can a product have 2 owners (a user and a company)? The 2nd method does not forbid it.
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:06
Yes, a product can have 2 owners. In solution 1, there would be a ProductAssignmentId PK.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:58
add a comment |
Can a product have 2 owners (a user and a company)? The 2nd method does not forbid it.
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:06
Yes, a product can have 2 owners. In solution 1, there would be a ProductAssignmentId PK.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:58
Can a product have 2 owners (a user and a company)? The 2nd method does not forbid it.
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:06
Can a product have 2 owners (a user and a company)? The 2nd method does not forbid it.
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:06
Yes, a product can have 2 owners. In solution 1, there would be a ProductAssignmentId PK.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:58
Yes, a product can have 2 owners. In solution 1, there would be a ProductAssignmentId PK.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:58
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I'm not entirely sure if I'm right, but as far as I know solution 1 will not work since you can't add two foreign keys in the same column and even if it is possible the values will probably overlap, such as existing a UserId = 1 and a CompanyId = 1 causing you not to know which of them is the true one, furthermore thinking of a big solution you may even compromise the performance of a query that wishes only company owned or user owned. Solution 2 seems much more robust and a efficient design to me.
answered May 19 '15 at 20:58
EnthusiastEnthusiast
80111
1
"performatic" is not a word (as far as I know.) I think you mean "efficient".
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:09
Very sorry, I forgot to mention that the IDs will be uniqueidentifiers (guids). I'll update the OP to reflect this.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:54
sorry, english is not my first language and in my language there is the equivalent word for performatic. i'll correct it
– Enthusiast
May 20 '15 at 16:12
I'd be very careful about having your IDs as GUIDs if you plan to have them as your clustering primary key. All your NC indexes will implicitly contain that 16 byte key and your index space will blow up.
– Queue Mann
May 20 '15 at 16:21
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%2f101902%2foptions-for-structuring-multiple-associations-to-a-record%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
I'm not entirely sure if I'm right, but as far as I know solution 1 will not work since you can't add two foreign keys in the same column and even if it is possible the values will probably overlap, such as existing a UserId = 1 and a CompanyId = 1 causing you not to know which of them is the true one, furthermore thinking of a big solution you may even compromise the performance of a query that wishes only company owned or user owned. Solution 2 seems much more robust and a efficient design to me.
answered May 19 '15 at 20:58
EnthusiastEnthusiast
80111
1
"performatic" is not a word (as far as I know.) I think you mean "efficient".
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:09
Very sorry, I forgot to mention that the IDs will be uniqueidentifiers (guids). I'll update the OP to reflect this.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:54
sorry, english is not my first language and in my language there is the equivalent word for performatic. i'll correct it
– Enthusiast
May 20 '15 at 16:12
I'd be very careful about having your IDs as GUIDs if you plan to have them as your clustering primary key. All your NC indexes will implicitly contain that 16 byte key and your index space will blow up.
– Queue Mann
May 20 '15 at 16:21
add a comment |
I'm not entirely sure if I'm right, but as far as I know solution 1 will not work since you can't add two foreign keys in the same column and even if it is possible the values will probably overlap, such as existing a UserId = 1 and a CompanyId = 1 causing you not to know which of them is the true one, furthermore thinking of a big solution you may even compromise the performance of a query that wishes only company owned or user owned. Solution 2 seems much more robust and a efficient design to me.
answered May 19 '15 at 20:58
EnthusiastEnthusiast
80111
1
"performatic" is not a word (as far as I know.) I think you mean "efficient".
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:09
Very sorry, I forgot to mention that the IDs will be uniqueidentifiers (guids). I'll update the OP to reflect this.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:54
sorry, english is not my first language and in my language there is the equivalent word for performatic. i'll correct it
– Enthusiast
May 20 '15 at 16:12
I'd be very careful about having your IDs as GUIDs if you plan to have them as your clustering primary key. All your NC indexes will implicitly contain that 16 byte key and your index space will blow up.
– Queue Mann
May 20 '15 at 16:21
add a comment |
I'm not entirely sure if I'm right, but as far as I know solution 1 will not work since you can't add two foreign keys in the same column and even if it is possible the values will probably overlap, such as existing a UserId = 1 and a CompanyId = 1 causing you not to know which of them is the true one, furthermore thinking of a big solution you may even compromise the performance of a query that wishes only company owned or user owned. Solution 2 seems much more robust and a efficient design to me.
answered May 19 '15 at 20:58
EnthusiastEnthusiast
80111
I'm not entirely sure if I'm right, but as far as I know solution 1 will not work since you can't add two foreign keys in the same column and even if it is possible the values will probably overlap, such as existing a UserId = 1 and a CompanyId = 1 causing you not to know which of them is the true one, furthermore thinking of a big solution you may even compromise the performance of a query that wishes only company owned or user owned. Solution 2 seems much more robust and a efficient design to me.
answered May 19 '15 at 20:58
EnthusiastEnthusiast
80111
edited May 20 '15 at 16:17
answered May 19 '15 at 20:58
EnthusiastEnthusiast
80111
answered May 19 '15 at 20:58
EnthusiastEnthusiast
80111
answered May 19 '15 at 20:58
EnthusiastEnthusiast
80111
80111
1
"performatic" is not a word (as far as I know.) I think you mean "efficient".
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:09
Very sorry, I forgot to mention that the IDs will be uniqueidentifiers (guids). I'll update the OP to reflect this.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:54
sorry, english is not my first language and in my language there is the equivalent word for performatic. i'll correct it
– Enthusiast
May 20 '15 at 16:12
I'd be very careful about having your IDs as GUIDs if you plan to have them as your clustering primary key. All your NC indexes will implicitly contain that 16 byte key and your index space will blow up.
– Queue Mann
May 20 '15 at 16:21
add a comment |
1
"performatic" is not a word (as far as I know.) I think you mean "efficient".
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:09
Very sorry, I forgot to mention that the IDs will be uniqueidentifiers (guids). I'll update the OP to reflect this.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:54
sorry, english is not my first language and in my language there is the equivalent word for performatic. i'll correct it
– Enthusiast
May 20 '15 at 16:12
I'd be very careful about having your IDs as GUIDs if you plan to have them as your clustering primary key. All your NC indexes will implicitly contain that 16 byte key and your index space will blow up.
– Queue Mann
May 20 '15 at 16:21
1
1
"performatic" is not a word (as far as I know.) I think you mean "efficient".
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:09
"performatic" is not a word (as far as I know.) I think you mean "efficient".
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:09
Very sorry, I forgot to mention that the IDs will be uniqueidentifiers (guids). I'll update the OP to reflect this.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:54
Very sorry, I forgot to mention that the IDs will be uniqueidentifiers (guids). I'll update the OP to reflect this.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:54
sorry, english is not my first language and in my language there is the equivalent word for performatic. i'll correct it
– Enthusiast
May 20 '15 at 16:12
sorry, english is not my first language and in my language there is the equivalent word for performatic. i'll correct it
– Enthusiast
May 20 '15 at 16:12
I'd be very careful about having your IDs as GUIDs if you plan to have them as your clustering primary key. All your NC indexes will implicitly contain that 16 byte key and your index space will blow up.
– Queue Mann
May 20 '15 at 16:21
I'd be very careful about having your IDs as GUIDs if you plan to have them as your clustering primary key. All your NC indexes will implicitly contain that 16 byte key and your index space will blow up.
– Queue Mann
May 20 '15 at 16:21
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%2f101902%2foptions-for-structuring-multiple-associations-to-a-record%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
Can a product have 2 owners (a user and a company)? The 2nd method does not forbid it.
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
May 19 '15 at 21:06
Yes, a product can have 2 owners. In solution 1, there would be a ProductAssignmentId PK.
– StronglyTyped
May 20 '15 at 12:58