Sql – Designing an SQL Table and getting it right the first time

database-designsql

I currently working on an issue tracker for my company to help them keep track of problems that arise with the network. I am using C# and SQL.

Each issue has about twenty things we need to keep track of(status, work loss, who created it, who's working on it, etc). I need to attach a list of teams affected by the issue to each entry in my main issue table. The list of teams affected ideally contains some sort of link to a unique table instance, just for that issue, that shows the list of teams affected and what percentage of each teams labs are affected.

So my question is what is the best way to impliment this "link" between an entry into the issue table and a unique table for that issue? Or am I thinking about this problem wrong.

Best Solution

What you are describing is called a "many-to-many" relationship. A team can be affected by many issues, and likewise an issue can affect many teams.

In SQL database design, this sort of relationship requires a third table, one that contains a reference to each of the other two tables. For example:

CREATE TABLE teams (
  team_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY
  -- other attributes
);

CREATE TABLE issues (
  issue_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY
  -- other attributes
);

CREATE TABLE team_issue (
  issue_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
  team_id INTEGER NOT NULL,
  FOREIGN KEY (issue_id) REFERENCES issues(issue_id),
  FOREIGN KEY (team_id) REFERENCES teams(team_id),
  PRIMARY KEY (issue_id, team_id)
);

Related Solutions

Sql – the difference between “INNER JOIN” and “OUTER JOIN”

Assuming you're joining on columns with no duplicates, which is a very common case:

An inner join of A and B gives the result of A intersect B, i.e. the inner part of a Venn diagram intersection.
An outer join of A and B gives the results of A union B, i.e. the outer parts of a Venn diagram union.

Examples

Suppose you have two tables, with a single column each, and data as follows:

Note that (1,2) are unique to A, (3,4) are common, and (5,6) are unique to B.

Inner join

An inner join using either of the equivalent queries gives the intersection of the two tables, i.e. the two rows they have in common.

select * from a INNER JOIN b on a.a = b.b;
select a.*, b.*  from a,b where a.a = b.b;

a | b
--+--
3 | 3
4 | 4

Left outer join

A left outer join will give all rows in A, plus any common rows in B.

select * from a LEFT OUTER JOIN b on a.a = b.b;
select a.*, b.*  from a,b where a.a = b.b(+);

a |  b
--+-----
1 | null
2 | null
3 |    3
4 |    4

Right outer join

A right outer join will give all rows in B, plus any common rows in A.

select * from a RIGHT OUTER JOIN b on a.a = b.b;
select a.*, b.*  from a,b where a.a(+) = b.b;

a    |  b
-----+----
3    |  3
4    |  4
null |  5
null |  6

Full outer join

A full outer join will give you the union of A and B, i.e. all the rows in A and all the rows in B. If something in A doesn't have a corresponding datum in B, then the B portion is null, and vice versa.

select * from a FULL OUTER JOIN b on a.a = b.b;

 a   |  b
-----+-----
   1 | null
   2 | null
   3 |    3
   4 |    4
null |    6
null |    5

Sql – the difference between UNION and UNION ALL

UNION removes duplicate records (where all columns in the results are the same), UNION ALL does not.

There is a performance hit when using UNION instead of UNION ALL, since the database server must do additional work to remove the duplicate rows, but usually you do not want the duplicates (especially when developing reports).

To identify duplicates, records must be comparable types as well as compatible types. This will depend on the SQL system. For example the system may truncate all long text fields to make short text fields for comparison (MS Jet), or may refuse to compare binary fields (ORACLE)

UNION Example:

SELECT 'foo' AS bar UNION SELECT 'foo' AS bar

Result:

+-----+
| bar |
+-----+
| foo |
+-----+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)

UNION ALL example:

SELECT 'foo' AS bar UNION ALL SELECT 'foo' AS bar