In my application there are N number of Users. Each user can have N number of Categories. Each category can have N number of Books.
I have created following Entities BookMetadata, Users, Categories
BookMetadata entity is a unique collection of books data from different users.
How do I go about creating relationship between these entities.
Relationship between - Users & Categories.(one to many) or users & books (one to many, one user can have one or more than one book).
Relationship between - Categories & Books.(one to many).
Is my understanding about implementing these relationships correct, I'm relatively new in creating relationships in CoreData. If no or a better solution, please let me know how to go about it.
EDIT:
Consider this scenario,
User 1 -> Category 1 -> Book1,Book2.
-> Category 2 -> Book3, Book4.
User 2 -> Category 1 -> Book1,Book2,Book3.
-> Category 3 -> Book4
Here In the above scenario. The same Book (Book 3) has different category for the different user.
How to handle this scenario?
EDIT 2:
I'm attaching a sample sqlite DB file #dropbox https://www.dropbox.com/s/nlmdojkk64bkf1b/test.sqlite.
As a convention Entities should be named as singular. The relationships should be named plural or singular relative to their relationship.
From the given information it is assumed that category is created by a user to group the books like a playlist or something. A category will be unique to user and it is not shared among users. A book can be included in any number of categories.
So this will become
User < -- >> Categories
Category <-- >> Books
Book < -- >> Categories
A relation should have two sides. Inverse let you define that. If a user can have any number of categories and a category can only have one user. Inverse of categories is a user.
Related
I'm creating a web platform on AWS to enable restaurant owners in my community to create menus. I'm moving from a relational database model to a NoSQL solution and wondering the best way to organize this data. My current relational model is as follows:
Table 'restaurants': id (int / primary key), name, owner (int)
Table 'categories': id (int / primary key), restaurant (int), parent (int)
Table 'items': id (primary key), name, category (int)
Only the owner should be allowed to create/update/delete places, categories, and items.
What would you recommend as a de-normalized solution given the ownership constraint? I was thinking of doing the following:
Table 'restaurants': id (primary key), owner (sort key), categories (list of ids)
Table 'categories': id (primary key), restaurant (id), items (list of item objects), subcategories (list of category ids)
Wondering if it'd be better to have all category data contained within the restaurant table. As an example, a user should only be able to add an item to a category if they are the owner of the associated restaurant, which would take an additional query, per above.
Depends mostly how you use your data . If usually the Restaurant is read full, is ok to have all in the restaurants table.
If you have a lot of operations only on one category , for example many are interested only in food and not interested in drinks , then it would be good to have this done on categories.
I think for some restaurants would be better to have it split in categories and keep common data on restaurant level , address, phone , opening hours and so on .
I don't think write is important , seems to be over 90% read web site.0
Perhaps a cache solution ? Redis ? Memcache ? this would speed up even more.
I have 2 entities.
entity 1 - People
entity 2 - books
People entity has a property which is an array of string names of their favorite books.
I need to create a relationship that somehow maps the favorite book of a person to the corresponding book entity object(s).
I am not sure how to do this.
So far I have started by creating a relationship in core data model for people by setting destination to "books" and then for the books entity creating a relationship by setting destination to "people".
I don't see or understand how this will automatically pick out each of the person's favorite books...at the end of the day they are both seperate objects. How will the people class know that for a specific people instance that this, this and this book are that person's favorite?
Person attribute as array of string names of books -- very bad idea!
You need a to-many relationship with the Book entity. That's it.
Person <------------>> Book
Then, to get an array of book titles for a particular person:
(person.books as! Set<Book>).map { $0.title }
The person can have an additional to-one relationship (e.g. called favoriteBook) to one of the books.
I'm having a little trouble grasping CoreData relationships, i'm note sure which relationship type I should be using between my 2 entities or if my logic is correct.
1) "Person" Entity - attributes such as name, tel, address, country, etc...
2) "CountryList" - attributes such as countryName, countryLat, countryLong, etc..
The CountryList entity is pre populated on first run of the app to include all the countries in the world and their respected data.
Where i'm stuck is do I need a relationship between these two entities?
I will be allowing the user to select a country from the CountryList entity data and wish to store there selection in the country attribute for Person entity.
Do I just take the countryName from CountryList as a string and store it in country from Person? or can I make a relationship between them?
I know a user can only belong to 1 country but a country can have lots of users so is this a one to many relationship? Or is it many to many because lots of users can belong to a country but a country can have loads of users? Confused!
Could someone please enlighten me on this and point me in the right direction in what i should be doing in xcode.
Many Thanks in Advance
Matt
EDIT: Is this correct?
I have made the changes to Entity names etc and think I now have the relationship set correctly.
EDIT 2: Removed country attribute and renamed relationships
Firstly, your "CountryList" entity should be called "Country", since it represents only one country. The fact that you have many of those countries has nothing to do with its name.
After that, it seems just natural to use a relationship, one "Person" has one "Country", but one country can have many persons. Therefore, one-to-many relationship. Using a relationship will simplify many operations you might want to perform (i.e. access all the country information of one person, or get a list of all persons being in one particular country).
Oh, and this might help you understand relationships a bit better: There are no "many-to-many" relationships in CoreData per se. You always define a relation from a source to a target. So if you define a relation from Country to Person, this will be a one-to-many relationship. One country, many persons. You can then define a relationship from Person to Country, which would be a one-to-one relationship. One person, one country. If you defined this as an one-to-many relationship, you would end up with a de facto many-to-many relationship (because on person can have many countries and one country can have many persons). It's not as complex as it appears.
Now, after you've defined your two relationships, you can set them as each others "Inverse Relationship". Do it for one of the relationships, the other one will be set automatically. After you did that, CoreData will for example update a Person's country when you add the person to the country's list.
See https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CoreData/Articles/cdRelationships.html for further information.
CountryList should just be Country
Then you set a 'many to one' relationship between Person.county and Country
You are using Core Data so you must define relationship between Person and Country if you want to fetch person's country from database.
And in this relationship you may take one to one relationship. As One person will belong to one country only. Of Course a country will have many person but unless you want to show all people related to particular country you do not need one to many relationship..
In case you want to implement one to many relationship this tutorial link maybe helpful to you for understanding one to many relationship..
http://www.theappcodeblog.com/2011/09/29/iphone-app-development-tutorial-core-data-part-2-one-to-many-relationship/
So I have this problem I am trying to solve - I wonder if anyone can comment on/help me with the approach. The thing is, I have it partly solved, but with the rest I'm not quite sure.
Here's the deal:
I have a fairly large DB online which I want to load on first start of the App. After that I am only going to load it if new versions exist.
I use an xml parser to parse the data and enter all the data to my data model. The database consists of thousands of products, all described by various attributes.
Anyway, it's easy for me to save thousands of products in a database, then retrieving the data on demand.
I have a problem of how to categorize them and how to save the category data. There is a main category i.e. Hi-Fi which has several subcategories- let's say 'stereo', 'tuner', 'phone' and so on....
How to best save this info, that category a has 15 subcategories and each of these categories in turn has 30 products while securing performance and keeping process-time at a minimum. I don't want to check all 2000 Products whether I need to show them in a certain table view each time I open a new table view.
Any hints on the apporach are appreciated.
You'll need two entities: Product and Category.
Category has a to-many relationship called subcategories with a target entity of Category. The inverse relationship can be called parentCategory. Category also has a to-many relationship called products. Product would have an inverse relationship called category (or categories if a product can belong to multiple categories)
Now, you can get all the products for a given category by checking its products property. If you want to include all the products in the subcategories, you can do a fetch request with a predicate like this:
[NSPredicate predicateWithFormat:#"category == %# OR category IN %#", category, category.subcategories];
I think you can solve it by having a Core Data modal consisting of three entities: Product, Category and SubCategory.
Product has a relationship category with destination Category and a relationship subcategory with destination SubCategory.
Category has a to-many relationship products with destination Product and a to-many relationship subcategories with destination SubCategory.
SubCategory has a to-many relationship products with destination Product and a relationship category with destination Category.
When defining these relationships remember to assign the Inverse relationships as well.
Now you get a list of all products belonging to a specific category by just loading the Category in question and accessing the products property. It should also be possible to use NSFetchRequest for Product with a predicate specifying which category you want. Which is best regarding performance and memory requirements I can't say so you just have to test which approach works best.
Please help an EF n00b design his database.
I have several companies that produce several products, so there's a many-to-many relationship between companies and products. I have an intermediate table, Company_Product, that relates them.
Each company/product combination has a unique SKU. For example Acme widgets have SKU 123, but Omega widgets have SKU 456. I added the SKU as a field in the Company_Product intermediate table.
EF generated a model with a 1:* relationship between the company and Company_Product tables, and a 1:* relationship between the product and Company_Product tables. I really want a : relationship between company and product. But, most importantly, there's no way to access the SKU directly from the model.
Do I need to put the SKU in its own table and write a join, or is there a better way?
I just tested this in a new VS2010 project (EFv4) to be sure, and here's what I found:
When your associative table in the middle (Company_Product) has ONLY the 2 foreign keys to the other tables (CompanyID and ProductID), then adding all 3 tables to the designer ends up modeling the many to many relationship. It doesn't even generate a class for the Company_Product table. Each Company has a Products collection, and each Product has a Companies collection.
However, if your associative table (Company_Product) has other fields (such as SKU, it's own Primary Key, or other descriptive fields like dates, descriptions, etc), then the EF modeler will create a separate class, and it does what you've already seen.
Having the class in the middle with 1:* relationships out to Company and Product is not a bad thing, and you can still get the data you want with some easy queries.
// Get all products for Company with ID = 1
var q =
from compProd in context.Company_Product
where compProd.CompanyID == 1
select compProd.Product;
True, it's not as easy to just navigate the relationships of the model, when you already have your entity objects loaded, for instance, but that's what a data layer is for. Encapsulate the queries that get the data you want. If you really want to get rid of that middle Company_Product class, and have the many-to-many directly represented in the class model, then you'll have to strip down the Company_Product table to contain only the 2 foreign keys, and get rid of the SKU.
Actually, I shouldn't say you HAVE to do that...you might be able to do some edits in the designer and set it up this way anyway. I'll give it a try and report back.
UPDATE
Keeping the SKU in the Company_Product table (meaning my EF model had 3 classes, not 2; it created the Company_Payload class, with a 1:* to the other 2 tables), I tried to add an association directly between Company and Product. The steps I followed were:
Right click on the Company class in the designer
Add > Association
Set "End" on the left to be Company (it should be already)
Set "End" on the right to Product
Change both multiplicities to "* (Many)"
The navigation properties should be named "Products" and "Companies"
Hit OK.
Right Click on the association in the model > click "Table Mapping"
Under "Add a table or view" select "Company_Product"
Map Company -> ID (on left) to CompanyID (on right)
Map Product -> ID (on left) to ProductID (on right)
But, it doesn't work. It gives this error:
Error 3025: Problem in mapping fragments starting at line 175:Must specify mapping for all key properties (Company_Product.SKU) of table Company_Product.
So that particular association is invalid, because it uses Company_Product as the table, but doesn't map the SKU field to anything.
Also, while I was researching this, I came across this "Best Practice" tidbit from the book Entity Framework 4.0 Recipies (note that for an association table with extra fields, besides to 2 FKs, they refer to the extra fields as the "payload". In your case, SKU is the payload in Company_Product).
Best Practice
Unfortunately, a project
that starts out with several,
payload-free, many-to-many
relationships often ends up with
several, payload-rich, many-to-many
relationships. Refactoring a model,
especially late in the development
cycle, to accommodate payloads in the
many-to-many relationships can be
tedious. Not only are additional
entities introduced, but the queries
and navigation patterns through the
relationships change as well. Some
developers argue that every
many-to-many relationship should start
off with some payload, typically a
synthetic key, so the inevitable
addition of more payload has
significantly less impact on the
project.
So here's the best practice.
If you have a payload-free,
many-to-many relationship and you
think there is some chance that it may
change over time to include a payload,
start with an extra identity column in
the link table. When you import the
tables into your model, you will get
two one-to-many relationships, which
means the code you write and the model
you have will be ready for any number
of additional payload columns that
come along as the project matures. The
cost of an additional integer identity
column is usually a pretty small price
to pay to keep the model more
flexible.
(From Chapter 2. Entity Data Modeling Fundamentals, 2.4. Modeling a Many-to-Many Relationship with a Payload)
Sounds like good advice. Especially since you already have a payload (SKU).
I would just like to add the following to Samuel's answer:
If you want to directly query from one side of a many-to-many relationship (with payload) to the other, you can use the following code (using the same example):
Company c = context.Companies.First();
IQueryable<Product> products = c.Company_Products.Select(cp => cp.Product);
The products variable would then be all Product records associated with the Company c record. If you would like to include the SKU for each of the products, you could use an anonymous class like so:
var productsWithSKU = c.Company_Products.Select(cp => new {
ProductID = cp.Product.ID,
Name = cp.Product.Name,
Price = cp.Product.Price,
SKU = cp.SKU
});
foreach (var
You can encapsulate the first query in a read-only property for simplicity like so:
public partial class Company
{
public property IQueryable<Product> Products
{
get { return Company_Products.Select(cp => cp.Product); }
}
}
You can't do that with the query that includes the SKU because you can't return anonymous types. You would have to have a definite class, which would typically be done by either adding a non-mapped property to the Product class or creating another class that inherits from Product that would add an SKU property. If you use an inherited class though, you will not be able to make changes to it and have it managed by EF - it would only be useful for display purposes.
Cheers. :)