The database I'm designing has 3 major tables: BOOKS
, ARTICLES
, NOTES
.
Each book or article can have multiple notes, my original design was just like that, which means both notes on books and notes on articles go the 'notes' table. Here are the columns for the NOTES
table:
note_id
note_type
note_type_id
note_content
NOTE_TYPE
can be either 'book' or 'article'; NOTE_TYPE_ID
is the FK for a book_id if the note_type is 'book' OR an article id if the note_type is 'article'.
Now I start to wonder if that's the correct(or best normalized) design. An alternative approach is to use 5 tables
books / articles / notes / book_notes / article_notes
This way I can keep book notes and article notes separately, the columns are like
'notes' { note_id, note_content } 'book_notes' { book_id, note_id } 'article_notes' { articel_id, note_id }
Which one is correct or better?
The advantages are that supertypes allow us to unify common attributes, relationships and integrity for multiple entity sets, while subtypes allow us to support type-specific attributes, relationships and integrity constraints. This allows us to simplify the database and our queries and enforce tighter integrity.
A subtype is a sub-grouping of the entities in an entity type that is meaningful to the organization and that shares common attributes or relationships distinct from other subgroups. Create separate tables for the super type and all sub type entities for the following reasons: Data integrity enforced at database level.
The primary key of a subtype relation will also be a foreign key that references its supertype relation. Attributes of a supertype (except for the primary key) appear only in the relation that represents the supertype.
Maybe a bit different approach -- supertype/subtype is usually used when you have very specific columns for each subtype, like in Person supertype with Patient and Doctor subtypes. Person holds all data common to people and Patient and Doctor hold very specific columns for each one. In this example your book_notes
and article_notes
are not really that different.
I would rather consider having a supertype Publication with Book and Article as subtypes. Then you can have just one Note table with FK to Publication. Considering that a PK number in Publication is the same number as the [PK,FK] of Book (Article) you can do joins with notes on Publication, Book or Article. This way you can simply add another publication, like Magazine by adding a new sub-classed table and not changing anything regarding Note.
For example:
TABLE Publication (
ID (PK)
, Title
, -- more columns common to any publication
)
TABLE Book (
ID (PK) = FK to Publication
, ISBN
, -- more columns specific to books only
)
TABLE Article (
ID (PK) = FK to Publication
, -- more columns specific to articles only)
TABLE Note (
ID (PK)
, PublicationID = FK to Publication
, NoteText
)
Primary key for Book
and Article
tables also serves as a foreign key to the Publication
.
Now if we add another publication, Magazine:
TABLE Magazine (
ID (PK) = FK to Publication
, -- more columns specific to magazines only
)
We do not have to modify Note
in any way -- and we have added columns specific to magazines only.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With