I am trying to do something fairly easy to understand with WCF data services, but can't find how to do it.
I have 3 table, Customer, Product and a joint table Customer_Product linking the two other tables (a basic n to n relationship):
Customer <= Customer_Product => Product
I want to get a customer and its products in the same query, so I would like to do something like:
/Service.svc/Customers(23)?$expand=Products
But it tells me that there is no Products navigation property on the table Customer.
The only option that I found is to do:
/Service.svc/Customers(23)?$expand=Customer_Product
and then make another call to get the Product details.
Is there a clean way to do this?
Thanks a lot in advance.
The many to many relationships are usually modeled by the service by hiding the join table (if the only thing it stores is the relationship and there's no data in it). If you're using EF in the service this should be pretty easy to do.
If you do need to expose the join table for some reason, then you can issue a query like:
/Service.svc/Customers(23)?$expand=Customer_Product/Product
(expands can be multiple levels deep). Of course reading the results will be a bit more complicated because of the two levels there, but you do get the data you need.
Related
I work in cattle production and I am learning about database design with postgreSQL. Now I am working on an entity attribute relationship model for a database that allows to register the allocation of the pastures in which cattle graze. In the logic of this business an animal can be assigned to several grazing groups during its life. Each grazing group in turn has a duration and is composed of several pastures in which the animals graze according to a rotation calendar. In this way, at a specific time, animals graze in a pasture that is part of a grazing group.
I have a situation in which many grazing groups can be assigned to many animals as well as many pastures. Trying to model this problem I find a fan trap because there are two one-to-many relationships for a single table. According to this, I would like to ask you about how one can deal with this type of relationship in which one entity relates to two others in the form of many-to-many relationships.
I put a diagram on the problem.
model diagram
Thanks
Traditionally, using a link table (the ones you call assignment) between two tables has been the right way to do many-to-many relationships. Other choices include having an ARRAY of animal ids in grazing group, using JSONB fields etc. Those might prove to be problematic later, so I'd recommend going the old way.
If you want to keep track of history, you can add an active boolean field (to the link table probably) to indicate which assignment is current or have a start date and end date for each assignment. This also makes it possible to plan future assignments. To make things easier, make VIEWs showing only current assignment and further VIEWs to show JOINed tables.
Since there's no clear question in your post, I'd just say you are going the right way.
I'm trying Google Cloud Datastore, but I have some doubts. I know that the ideal is to use a relational database for make a shop online, but I would like to try using Google Cloud Datastore.
How would a database of 2 tables be made? Stock and Products. The stock table has 2 columns (ref and units) and the product table has 3 columns (name, ref and price).
How would you do to get all the products that have stock?... like a join, I know that we do not have joins, that's why my doubt.
There has to be an efficient way to get the stock related to the products.
There are no tables in the Datastore, you have just entities with properties. And, depending on the client library you use, you might have entity models.
The Stock entities can have a Key property pointing to the corresponding Product entities. You query for the Stock entities, from the results you obtain the Product keys with which you pull the respective entities.
Or, if they're always in a 1:1 relationship I could use the exact same entity IDs for the corresponding Stock and Product entities, so I can make a Stock query and from the Stock entities in the result (or rather from their keys/IDs as I'd probably make keys_only queries) I can immediately compute the Product keys and get the respective entities (see re-using an entity's ID for other entities of different kinds - sane idea?).
But, in general, you might want to reconsider the general SQL approach of querying data to generate a report when you need it (and expecting that to be fast) and instead make the habit of performing the necessary computations ahead of time - whenever the data used in those computations changes. This is a much more scalable approach which works hand in hand with the datastore (and I guess with nosql in general). And for which you do not need to perform equivalent to SQL-style join ops. Basically raise the stock empty flag for a product right when you decrement its stock value, when you already know the product in question, so that you don't have to query for it later. While there also add it to the report (so that you'll have it ready when needed) and maybe trigger the restocking activity as well.
I hope someone can give me some guidance in how to best approach this situation.
I am using dbcontext, wpf and sql server.
I am having situations were the presentation of the data requires other data than just what is coming from a single table. For example, if I had a person table but wanted to show also how many books they had read from related data, say fields would be name, address, NoOfBooks.
I currently create a new class, called say PersonBookPM, that I fill up with data from a linq query which combines the two tables which includes the above three fields.I create an observablecollection of that and make that the itemssource of the grid/listbox.
When I am then adding data to that I then need to use the selecteditem, convert that back to the single entity of person, and attach it back in to the context.
It seems like the classes have already been defined by the code gen and I am repeating the process only slightly differently.
Am I going round the houses here?
Thanks Scott
This may be a dumb question, but I've always wondered what's the best way to do this.
Suppose we have a database with two tables: Users and Orders (one user can have many orders), and in any OOP language you have two classes to represent those tables User and Order. In the database it's evident that the 'order' will have the 'user' ID because it's a one to many relationship (because one user can have many orders) and the user won't have any order ID. But in code what's the best practice out of the following three?
a) Should the user have an array of Orders?
b) Should the order have the user ID?
c) Should the order have a reference to the user object?
Or are there more efficient ways to tackle this? I've always done it in different ways, they all have both pros and cons, but I've never asked an expert's opinion.
Thanks in advance!
In this instance, the User could have an array of orders if you're performing operations on the User that also involves orders that they own.
Whenever I design my classes, objects that are related contain pointers to each other, so I can access the Orders from the User and the User from an Order.
I don't believe there is a best practice as it really depends on what you're trying to accomplish. With Users and Orders, I could see you starting with an Order and needing to access the User and vice versa; therefore, in your situation it sounds like you should map the objects both ways.
One word of warning, just be careful not to create a circular reference. If you delete both objects without removing the reference, it could create a memory leak.
You are asking about what is known as "object relational mapping" (ORM). I think the best way to learn what you want to learn is to look at some well established ORM libraries [such as ActiveRecord(Ruby) or Hibernate (Java)] and see how they do it.
With that in mind:
a) If the application requires it there should be access to an array (or similar enumeration) of objects representing the users orders through the user object. However this will usually best involve lazy loading (i.e. the orders will usually not be pulled from the database when the user pulled from the database....the orders will be subsequently queried when the application needs access to them). After objects are lazy loaded they can be cached by the ORM to eliminate the need for further queries on that istantiation.
b) Unless for performance reasons you only pull specific columns you're usually going to pull all columns when pulling an order. So it would include the user id.
c) Answer a applies to this as well.
I am having a model "Events" (Zend_Db_Table_Abstract) that's got various relationships to other models. Usually I think I would do something like this to find it and its relationships:
$events = new Events();
$event = $events->find($id)->current();
$eventsRelationship1 = $event->findDependentRowset('Relationship1');
As the relationship is already set up I am wondering if there's any sort of automatic join available or something. Every time I fetch my event I need to have all the relationships, too. Currently I see only two ways to achieve that:
Build the query myself, hard coded. Don't like this, because it's working around the already set up relationship and "model method convenience".
Fetch every related object with a single query. This one's ugly, too, as I have to trigger too many queries.
This goes even a step further when thinking about getting a set of multiple rows. For a single event I may query the database multiple times, but when fetching 100 rows joins are just elementary.
So, does anyone know a way to create joins by using those relationships or is there no other way than hardcoding the query?
Thanks in advance
Arne
The way to solve this challenge is to 'upgrade' your database access to use the dataMapper pattern.
You are essentially adding an extra layer between the model in your application an their representation in the db. This mapper layer allows you read/write data from different tables - rather than a direct link between one model and one table.
Here is a good tutorial to follow. (There are some bits you can skip - I left out all the getters and setters as its just me using the code).
It takes a little while to get your head round the way it works, when you've just been using Zend_Db_Table_Abstract, but it is worth it.