Suppose I have database tables Customer, Order, Item. I have OrderRepository that accesses, directly with SQL/my ORM, both the Order and Items table. E.g. I could have a method, getItems on the OrderRespositry that returns all items of that order.
Suppose I now also create ItemRepository. Given I now have 2 repositories accessing the same database table, is that generally considered poor design? My thinking is, sometimes a user wants to update the details about an Item (e.g. name), but when using the OrdersRepository, it doesn't really make sense to not be able to access the items directly (you want to know about all the items in an order)
Of course, the OrderRepository could internally create* an ItemRepository and call methods like getItemsById(ids: string[]). However, consider the case that I want to get all orders and items ever purchased by a Customer. Assuming you had the orderIds for a customer, you could have a getOrders(ids: string[]) on the OrderRepository to fetch all the orders and then do a second query to fetch all the Items. I feel you make your life harder (and less efficient) in the sense you have to do the join to match items with orders in the app code rather than doing a join in SQL.
If it's not considered bad practice, is there some kind of limit to how much overlap Repositories should have with each other. I've spent a while trying to search for this on the web, but it seems all the tutorials/blogs/vdieos really don't go further than 1 table per entity (which may be an anti-pattern).
Or am I missing a trick?
Thanks
FYI: using express with TypeScript (not C#)
is a repository creating another repository considered acceptable. shouldn't only the service layer do that?
It's difficult to separate the Database Model from the DDD design but you have to.
In your example:
GetItems should have this signature - OrderRepostiory.GetItems(Ids: int[]) : ItemEntity. Note that this method returns an Entity (not a DAO from your ORM). To get the ItemEntity, the method might pull information from several DAOs (tables, through your ORM) but it should only pull what it needs for the entity's hydration.
Say you want to update an item's name using the ItemRepository, your signature for that could look like ItemRepository.rename(Id: int, name: string) : void. When this method does it's work, it could change the same table as the GetItems above but note that it could also change other tables as well (For example, it could add an audit of the change to an AuditTable).
DDD gives you the ability to use different tables for different Contexts if you want. It gives you enough flexibility to make really bold choices when it comes the infrastructure that surrounds your domain. So ultimately, it's a matter of what makes sense for your specific situation and team. Some teams would apply CQRS and the GETOrder and Rename methods will look completely different under the covers.
I have a requirement within my application to fuzzy match a string value inputted by the user, against a datastore.
I am basically attempting to find possible duplicates in the process in which data is added to the system.
I have looked at Metaphone, Double Metaphone, and SoundEx, and the conclusion I have came to is they are all well and good when dealing with a single word input string; however I am trying to match against a undefined number of words (they are actually place names).
I did consider actually splitting each of the words from the string (removing any I define as noise words), then implementing some logic which would determine which place names within my data store, best matched (based on the keys from the algorithm I choose); the advantage I see in this, would be I could selectively tighten up, or loosen the match criteria to suit the application: however this does seem a little dirty to me.
So my question(s) are:
1: Am I approaching this problem in the right way, yes I understand it will be quite expensive; however (without going to deeply into the implementation) this information will be coming from a memcache database.
2: Are there any algorithms out there, that already specialise in phonetically matching multiple words? If so, could you please provide me with some information on them, and if possible their strengths and limitations.
You may want to look into a Locality-sensitive Hash such as the Nilsimsa Hash. I have used Nilsimsa to "hash" craigslists posts across various cities to search for duplicates (NOTE: I'm not a CL employee, just a personal project I was working on).
Most of these methods aren't as tunable as you may want (basically you can get some loosely-defined "edit distance" metric) and they're not phonetic, solely character based.
Does Core Data allow one to generate a statement like select FirstName, LastName from Employee instead of the entire row?
In the example of Departments/Employees, let's say I want to write a navagation controller style application to display the Departments available, and when clicked, the Employees available in that Department. Lets suppose that the Employee object is huge for whatever reason. I don't see why I would need to retrieve a huge set of objects in the EmployeesViewController just to display their names in a list view. Is there anyway I can just request the Name field (perhaps two: FirstName, LastName) for all Employees in a given Department?
Just as a side note:
Beware of the dangers of premature optimization. You shouldn't bother trying to tweak a fetch unless you've tested and found that the bare bones fetch is actually a problem. Core Data has a large number of optimizations under the hood that make it far more efficient than it would appear at first glance. In most cases, its an utter waste of time to tweak a fetch.
If you have a table that displays thousands of objects, you will usually only have a few dozen live objects in memory at anyone time. By default, Core Data fetches objects as faults i.e. ghost of the objects without the values of their attributes loaded. Only when you access a specific attribute of a specific object will that object load completely into memory.
If you come from an SQL background, you may be used to having to manually juggle objects created from SQL. Core Data handles all that for you and does so much more efficiently than you can do manually. You're intuitive assumption you developed working with SQL about the degree of manual optimization you need to do will be way off when applied to Core Data.
Instead, pick the simplest and easiest method first and optimize only if you test and find a bottleneck. Most of the time, you will find that your fretting over optimization was completely unwarranted.
If your employee object is very large, and loading it is too expensive, consider partitioning it with one-to-one relationships. If you have a list of fields like:
Employee:
id
name
SSN
DOB
home_address
home_phone
department
office_number
office_phone
manager
job_title
salary_class
start_date
...
You could break this up into:
Employee
id
department
manager
...
EmployeePersonalInfo
employee_id
SSN
DOB
home_address
home_phone
EmployeeJobDescription
employee_id
job_title
start_date
salary_class
And so on. For your most common objects, limiting the fetched data to the most pertinent and commonly-accessed field is good practice.
Yes. Use -[NSFetchRequest setPropertiesToFetch:]. Only available in iOS 3 & OS X 10.6 and later, though.
In my travels in Oracle, the 'stragg' function, or 'String Aggregator' was life-saving when I had to create dynamic SQL queries on the fly.
You can read up about it here: http://www.oratechinfo.co.uk/delimited_lists_to_collections.html
The basic use of it was:
select stragg(fruit) from food;
fruit
-----------
apple,pear,banana,strawberry
1 row(s) returned
So simple to use, concatenating chr(13) turned it into a long list, and selecting information from system tables gave a 5 minute solution to dynamically generated SQL, e.g. auditing triggers.
Now I've been charged with transferring oracle functionality related to auditing into Sybase, and a function similar to Stragg would be ideal for this purpose.
E.g.
select #my_table = 'table_of_fruit'
select 'insert into '+#mytable+'_copy (' +char(10)
+ stragg(c.name) +char(10)
+ 'select '
+ stragg('inserted.'+c.name) + char(10)
+ 'from '+#mytable
from syscolumns c
where objectid(#mytable) = c.id
------------------------------------------
insert into table_of_fruit_copy
(fruit, sweetness, price)
select fruit, sweetness,price
from inserted
Done. Simple.
Except I don't know how to get a string-aggregation function working in Sybase.
Does anyone know of an attempt to do this kind of thing, or code that could work the same as stragg that could be used in this way?
The alternative at the moment is printing code based on complex cursors and such (sample LOC: 500), or select statements combining static strings and columns from user tables (sample LOC: 200). Stragg would severely reduce the complexity of this code, and would be a great deal of help in the future (sample LOC: who knows, maybe 50?)
p.s. I'm calling these selects through a shell script then piping them to file, then running the file through iSQL. Not the nicest solution, but it's better than the alternatives.
There are three separate answers
Question
You have made comments about simplicity, which need to be addressed before we get to the solution.
It is a common requirement to be able to take a delimited list of values, say A,B,C,D, and treat this data like it was a set of rows in a table, or vice versa
This one of the Top Ten Worst Programming Practices I read about recently.
In general, Sybase types tend to be somewhat more academically and Relationally qualified than Oracle types, so we simply do not do that sort of thing in SybaseLand or DB2Land.
In 20 years of working with Sybase, I have had to code that as part of my project just once, and that was for non-technical Auditor who loaded the result set into MS Access.
On the other hand, I have had to code that at least 12 times, when producing text files for importation into Oracle databases (fulfilling external requirements is outside my project, but I satisfy any such requirement free). Obviously the target databases were sub-standard and non-relational (loading a column with more than one datum breaks 1NF, and creates Update Anomalies), which is typical of what Oracle types have to do to get some speed.
Therefore, no, it is not simplicity, at least in the sense of that principle. It is by definition, complexity.
Your reference to "arrays" is incorrect. All commercial dbms handle arrays, according to the ISO/IEC/ANSI SQL (STRAGGR and LIST operators are non-standard SQL, therefore not SQL). Sybase is very strong in processing arrays. If it was an array, you would not need special hand coding to handle it (and you do, as per your question). This is not an array, there is no definition to the cells. This is a single concatenated scalar string.
Pivoting is an entirely different process, which uses set-processing; it does not require row-processing. (I understand on good authority, that Oracle is hopeless at scalar subqueries, and thus Oracle people are used to writing them as [very inefficient] joins or inline views, and then filtering: all that can be elevated to set-processing via scalar subqueries, and it will perform much faster. Particularly your Pivots.)
Even the author in your link posts as follows. Please familiarise yourself with the caveats:
It's as simple as this: If you want to have a system with no logical limitation in the number of data elements passed to a given process, then forget the following mechanisms! They are simply the wrong way to approach the problem.
Therefore, know whatever you are doing is sub-standard, non-relational, and limited; and go ahead with your eyes open. No use pretending that: it will not break; it is not limited; it is an "array"; or that Sybase doesn't have a neat little function that Oracle has. Any professional will see through all that. And if the string length is exceeded, for God's sake send some indicator back to the caller ("!Exceeded" in the string) identifying that condition.
Essentially you are turning the set-processing engine on its head, and forcing it into row-processing mode, so it will be very slow. A WHILE loop is distinctly faster than a cursor, but both are in the same class, row-processors.
The alternative at the moment is printing code based on complex cursors and such
What 200 or 500 LoC ? It is possible I am missing something, but my code is the same few lines of code identified under "Using a Table Function" in your link. Maximum 20, if you count nice formatting; the loop; initialisation; error handling. There is nothing "complex" about it. Do the exact reverse to cancatenate a single string from multiple rows. We use stored procedures for this (which oracle does not have, really, PL/SQL is a different animal). If you have ASE 15.0.2 or greater, you can use a User Defined Function, which you can then use in place of a column. Stored procs are better for true arrays.
the concatenation operator in Sybase is the plus sign. For reversal (decomposing the CSV string) you need CHARINDEX and SUBSTRING functions
You may need the Function Reference Manual, if for nothing else, to avoid writing code where we have functions.
Likewise, we do not have a RANK() function. We are quite happy with the 4 lines of code requires for the subquery. It is only required for Oracle because subqueries are crippled.
Ok, I have answered your question, Now to address the approaches.
You will be aware that code using Oracle Extensions to the SQL standard will need to be changed.
Sybase is way more automated than Oracle; if you familiarise yourself with its feature set, in many instances, you can get the same result (as you did in Oracle) without writing any code. Writing code-for-code blocks is the chain gang, rock-breaking method of building roads, in the context of bulldozers. Even if your company had good reason to use that method, you need to the aware that features work quite differently, eg. triggers, which is why I am posting so much detail.
Another issue that will annoy you is that Oracle isn't really ANSI SQL compliant (stretches the definitions in many places, in order to appear to be compliant), and Sybase, given its customer base, is rigidly SQL compliant. So in addition to the same function working differently, or in a different deployment, you need to be aware that code changes may be required to elevate Oracle code to ANSI compliance levels, just to execute on an ANSI SQL compliant platform.
I am not sure if you are trying to write code for the content of a trigger, or if you are trying to capture the changes to a database. I will provide both answers.
Auditing
Capture Changes to Database
We have an very robust, fast and configurable Auditing subsystem, fit for high volumes and banking level auditing requirements. Get your DBA to setup the sybaudit (separate) database, and to configure exactly what changes need to be captured. This facility will perform much faster than any code you or I can write in a trigger (as much as 100 times faster than your row-by-processing required for the above, as it is executed within the engine, within your executing thread). And of course the setup time is a fraction of your coding time.
Triggers
Again, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to achieve, but assuming you want to copy every insert to some table to a COPY of that table (inside the Trigger), that example code you have provided will not work (and I am not counting syntax issues).
Speaking to your example, you need to do way more work, to deal with the different datatypes; column sizes; precisions; scale; etc. And perhaps the UPDATE() function to identify which columns have changed (for an UPDATE trigger of course). If all you are trying to do is convert the various datatypes to strings, check the CONVERT() function.
Triggers are transactional.
Never place row-processing code in a Trigger (it will strangle the table)
You can't place Dynamic SQL in a Trigger.
But in Sybase even that is not necessary. Refer to the User Guide, chapter 19 is devoted to Triggers, with several variations, and examples. Inside the trigger, you should be able to simply:
INSERT table_copy
SELECT column_list -- never use * unless you want the db fixed in cement
FROM inserted
If you are trying to copy the inserts to all tables into one Audit table, then beware. Then I understand your example a little bit more. You will be forcing a highly Symmetric Muli-Threading server (oracle is not a server in the architecture sense) into single-threading through your table. Auditing is multi-threaded.
Last, the use of manual methods of any kind is not required, so if you could expand a bit more on your PS, what the requirement you are trying to fulfil is, I can identify the programmatic method for you. It appears you are trying to use the PL/SQL approach (which is very limited).
Just use the LIST() function. It's a direct replacement for stragg() function. Example:
SELECT LIST(state, ', ') FROM cities
Result:
name
CA, CA, MA, NY
I'm trying to create an XML schema to describe some aspects of hospitals. A hospital may have 24 hour coverage on: emergency services, operating room, pharmacist, etc. The entire list is relatively short - around 10. The coverage may be on more than one of these services.
My question is how best to represent this. I'm thinking along the lines of:
<coverage>
<emergencyServices/>
<operatingRoom/>
</coverage>
Basically, the services are optional and, if they exist, the coverage is offered by the hospital.
Alternatively, I could have:
<coverage>
<emergencyServices>true</emergencyServices>
<operatingRoom>true</operatingRoom>
<pharmacist>false</pharmacist>
</coverage>
In this case, I require all the elements, but a value of false means that the coverage isn't offered.
There are probably other approaches.
What's the best practice for something like this? And, if I use the first option, what type should the elements be in the schema?
Best practice here depends really on the consumer.
The short and simple rule is that markup is for structure, and content is for data. So having them contain xs:boolean values is generally the best course.
Now, on to the options:
Having separate untyped elements is simple and clear; sometimes processing systems may have difficulty reading them, because some XML-relational mappers may not see any data in the elements to put in relational tables. But if they had values, like <emergencyServices>true</emergencyServices>, then the relational table would have a value to hold.
Again, if you have fixed element names, it means if your consumer is using a system that maps the XML to a database, every time you add a service, a schema change will have to be made.
There are several other ways; each has trade-offs:
Using a <xs:string> with an enumeration, and allow multiple copies. Then you could have <coverage>emergencyServices</coverage><coverage>operatingRoom</coverage>. It makes adding to the list simpler, but allows duplicates. This scheme does not require schema changes in the database for the consumer.
You could use attributes on the <coverage> element. They would have a xs:boolean type, but still require a schema change. Of course, this evokes the attribute vs. element argument.
One good resource is Chapter 11 of Effective XML. At least this should be read before making a final decision.