I am playing around with my own Parse server and would like to build a social media app just for fun. Just learning how to structure it and get everything developed.
One of the problems that I am having trouble wrapping my head around is how I would create a relationship structure between two users where the connection is mutual.
You would have to, on both ends, accept the relationship request.
I would also like to know how I would query for the friends list. Which would how would I query for the people the user has mutual connections with?
I hear that a friendship table relationship would be helpful for structuring a relationship with friends. But I would like to make it a mandatory mutual connection for people to be friends.
All you actually need is Request(person, friend) "PERSON asked to friend FRIEND", because requited and unrequited friendships can be extracted by query. You might prefer to keep those two relationships separately instead: Requited(person, friend) "PERSON asked to friend FRIEND and FRIEND asked to friend PERSON" & Unrequited(person, friend) "PERSON asked to friend FRIEND and FRIEND hasn't asked to friend PERSON". If a row (p, f) is in Requited then so is (f, p), and neither is in Unrequited. The two tables UNION to Request. But then you need to move rows between the tables when people friend or unfriend others. What is "best" logically depends on patterns of update & querying, and there will be likely be another "best" when implementation is included.
Database design is the identification of sufficient relationships/associations to describe any application situation. Each gets a table whose rows make a true statement from some characterizing statement template, aka predicate. Each query returns the rows that satisfy its own relationship/association, characterized by a predicate built from base predicates. Normalization helps with relationship/association/predicate/table choice, and so do information modeling methods. Pick a method (eg Object-Role Modeling) and learn it & how & why it leads to "good" designs while avoiding "bad" ones.
Create a new Object call "Relationships" and store both PFUser id's.
Related
I'm creating a discussion system using Parse.com
In my [simplified] system, there are Posts, Categorys, and Comments.
As you probably imagined, Posts can belong to one or more Categorys and can have multiple Comments.
However, often users will want to see all the Posts in a Category. If I set up my database like this
Post (name, content, categories)
Category(name)
I am worried that querying for all the Posts in a Category will be very ineffeficient (since it will have to check the categories field of every Post.
However, if I design the database like
Post (name, content)
Category(name, posts)
it will be inefficient for me to query what Categorys a Post belongs to since it will have to search all the Posts arrays in the all the Categorys.
I'm sure this must be a common Database design dilemma but I am still new at this. What is the best way to approach and solve this problem?
What you're looking for is a bi-directional, many-to-many relationship between Post and Category. With Parse, there are at least three approaches you can take.
You can add a column as a PFRelation to the Post table. You can ask a Post for its categories relation, create a query from that and run it. Inversely, if you have a category you can create a Post query with a where clause on the categories key. PFRelations are good if you will have big collections.
If you think better as a relational model, just create a "join" table called CategoryPosts. It would have two pointer columns, one for the Post and another for the Category. This is also very efficient.
Lastly, you could add an array column to either class. Since all of the results are loaded at once, this works best for smaller collections.
These options are described in a little more detail in the Parse Relations Documentation.
so I'm working with a database that has multiple collections and some of the data overlaps in the collection . In particular I have a collection called app-launches which contains a field called userId and one called users where the _id of a particular object is actually the same as the userId in app-launches. Is it possible to group the two collections together so I can analyze the data? Or maybe match the the userId in app-launches with the _id in users?
There is no definit answer for your question Jeffrey and none of the experts here can tell you to choose which technique over other just by having this information.
After going through various web pages over internet and mongo documentation and understanding the design patterns used in Mongo over a period of time, How I would design it depends on few things which I can try explaining it here in short.
if you have a One-To-One relation then always prefer to choose Embedding over Linking. e.g. User and its address (assuming user has only one address) thus you can utilize the atomicity (without worrying about transactions) as well easily fetch the records without too and fro to bring other information as in the case of Linking (like in DBRef)
If you have One-To-Many relation then you need to consider whether you can do the stuff by using Embedding (prefer this as explained the benefits in point 1). However, embedding would help you if you always want the information altogether e.g. Post/Comments where your requirement is to get the post and all of its comments by postId let say. But think of a situation where you need to get all the comments (and it related posts) which contains some specific tags in comments. in this case you should prefer Linking Because if you go via Embedding route then you would end up getting all the collection of comments for a post and you have to filter the desired comments.
for a Many-To-Many relations I would prefer two separate entities as well another collection for linking them e.g. Product-Category.
-$
GET https://api.website.com/v1/project/employee;company-id={company-id},
title={title-id}?non-smoker={true|false}&<name1>=<value1>&<name2>=<value2>&<name3>=<value3>
where:
company-id is mandatory,
title is optional
name/value can be any filter criteria.
Is there a better way to define the interface?
This API is not supposed to create an employee object. It is for getting an array of employee objects that belongs to a particular company and has a particular title and the other filter criteria.
I don't know if there is a better way, because it depends often on the technology you use and its idioms.
However, here is two different URI designs that I like (and why)
#1 GET https://api.website.com/v1/project/employee/{company-id}?title={title-id}&non-smoker={true|false}&<name1>=<value1>&<name2>=<value2>&<name3>=<value3>
#2 GET https://api.website.com/v1/project/company/{company-id}/employee?title={title-id}&non-smoker={true|false}&<name1>=<value1>&<name2>=<value2>&<name3>=<value3>
As you can see in both example I extracted company-id from the query string. I prefer to add mandatory parameters in the path info to distinguish them. Then, in the second URI, the employee ressource is nested in the company. That way you can easily guess that you can retrieve all employee from a specific company, which is not obvious in the first example.
This api is supposed to GET employee objects that satisfy the given criteria of belonging to a particular company, having particular job title and some other filter criteria.
Personally I would just design your URI as http://acme.com/employee/?company=X&title=Y&non-smoker=Z&T=U. I wouldn't write "in stone" that the company is mandatory: your API will be easier to change.
However, you should consider that few "big" requests are far faster than plenty of small ones. Moreover, URI representations can be effectively cached. Therefore it is often better to have URIs based on IDs (since there are more chances that they will be asked again).
So you could get the complete employee list of a company (plus other data about the company itself) with http://acme.com/company/X and then filter it client-side.
Are you creating a new employee object? If so then a POST (create) is more appropriate. A good clue is all the data you're pushing in the URL. All that should be in the body of the POST object.
I am writing a social networking web app with couchdb as backend. Currently I am maintaining user profiles as JSON docs.
My app has a friendship feature when one user will request other user and upon acceptance the friendship is solemnized. Besides friendship there is one way relationship called "follow" relationship as well.
I thought of creating a connection doc
{
source_user:'',
target_user:'',
source_follows_target:'',
target_follows_source:'',
..Similarly for friendship...
}
This doesn't look right to me at all. Since the relationship exists between two exactly similar entities (users in this case) I dont thin the model should try to distinguish between source and target.
The fact that the relationship can be (or is always) symmetric doesn't mean it necessarily has to be modelled as one logical relationship. I think it might more general to model the possibility of either, and then prevent one-way friendships in your application if you so desire.
In which case for each user you might have a set of users that they consider their friend (One -> Many). You could store a copy (or cache) of whether it is symmetric or not on each of these relationship objects to make it a bit more scalable.
A rough example of how a user object might look:
{
"userId": 1,
"friends": [{"userId": 2, "friendsBack": true | false}, ...]
}
Operations on these sets of users, e.g. intersections (friends in common), would then be a lot easier since they are accessed directly from the user object.
I 'm really having a hard time with the RESTful paradigm + nested urls. I have asked a question that lead me to where I am right now here. My Domain is roughly this: there are schools, courses of a school and teachers of schools. Now schools, courses and teacher are not "nested" entities in the sense that you can refer to any of them with one Id. The site is a collection of "micro-sites" for each school showing each one's courses and teachers. A course or teacher can only exist in one school.
say we have a url like /schools/1/courses/10 . Course 10 of school 1. This works fine. Say that the user changes by hand 10 into 11, which happens to exist but is a course of school 2. Right now that leads to a mess, my site still "thinks" the user is in school 1 but shows course 3 as part of it.
Should I make detail-actions parametric to both the Id being asked for AND the "parent" entity (the school in this case) that it involved? Fetch from repositories not only by id but with a school constraint?
Or is there any better way to do this?
The way I would think about it is this; even though there may be a course 11 in your service, there is no resource that exists at the URI /schools/1/courses/11. Since there is no resource at this URI, I would return an HTTP 404 response to requests for the URI.
One way you may improve your service would be to replace the integer ID values with the names of the entities (this would require the names be unique). This would make your URIs more user friendly. An example would be /schools/Hogwarts/courses/Potions.
To further improve your service, you'll want to give users a way to navigate through the service to all of the different resources available. For example you'll probably want to allow them get a list of all courses offered by a certain school. To do that you'd expose a resource at /schools/Hogwarts/courses/ whose return type would be a list of all courses offered by the school. The representation of this list could be an XML document like the following snippet:
<courses>
<course uri="/schools/hogwarts/courses/defense+against+the+dark+arts">Defense against the dark arts</course>
<course uri="/schools/hogwarts/courses/potions">Potions</course>
</courses>
Should I make detail-actions
parametric to both the Id being asked
for AND the "parent" entity (the
school in this case) that it involved?
Fetch from repositories not only by id
but with a school constraint?
Yes.
Or is there any better way to do this?
Nothing wrong with what you described above.
You could do it with a catch-all route, and then parsing the url elements yourself.