Hi I have made a tentative db design for my system and would like some feedback on whether you think it is well constructed, it can be found here:
Thanks
drtanz 0 Newbie Poster
debasisdas 580 Posting Genius Featured Poster
thats OK ,but u have mentiond only PK ,what about foreign keys .
you have not mentioned how are you maintaining ralations.
drtanz 0 Newbie Poster
thats OK ,but u have mentiond only PK ,what about foreign keys .
you have not mentioned how are you maintaining ralations.
in MODULES, FK is review_id
in MODULES_ROLES_USERS, FK are module_id, user_id and role_id
in MODULES_TASKS_USERS, FK are task_id, module_id and user_id
in ROLES_TASKS, FK are role_id, task_id
makes sense?
debasisdas 580 Posting Genius Featured Poster
it seems to be a good design following norms, but all depends on what is the logic you are going to implement on that. How youare going to use that is more important , on which i have no idea. It might happen you have to make some minor changes later on.
drtanz 0 Newbie Poster
it seems to be a good design following norms, but all depends on what is the logic you are going to implement on that. How youare going to use that is more important , on which i have no idea. It might happen you have to make some minor changes later on.
I have uploaded a document with the description of the system. Someone has also remarked to me that I should split the modules_roles_users table into three: modules_roles, modules_users and roles_users but im not sure if this is better, what do you think?
debasisdas 580 Posting Genius Featured Poster
As per rules of normalization ,that sounds good but in most of the cases we have to de-normalize the database to avaoid un-necessary complexcity. You can go with the structure and always there is room for improvement. Different people have different openion on the same scenario, and this is my personal view only.
drtanz 0 Newbie Poster
As per rules of normalization ,that sounds good but in most of the cases we have to de-normalize the database to avaoid un-necessary complexcity. You can go with the structure and always there is room for improvement. Different people have different openion on the same scenario, and this is my personal view only.
So you think i should be able to work with it even without splitting those tables?
drtanz 0 Newbie Poster
also i am unsure about using a separate id field for the primary key in the join tables rather than using the two foreign keys together as a primary key. what is ur opinion on this? thanks
debasisdas 580 Posting Genius Featured Poster
no need to split the tables further, it might look efective to you initially but later on will create more problems than it will solve and will be difficult to manage as the tables grows.
debasisdas 580 Posting Genius Featured Poster
also i am unsure about using a separate id field for the primary key in the join tables rather than using the two foreign keys together as a primary key. what is ur opinion on this? thanks
Even though u can use composit keys ,it is always recommended to use Primay key and again composit key based on foreignkey is not that recommended for any purpose. That should be used as the last option.
Be a part of the DaniWeb community
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.