Best representation of an ordered list in a database?

Solution: make index a string (because strings, in essence, have infinite "arbitrary precision"). Or if you use an int, increment index by 100 instead of 1.

The performance problem is this: there is no "in between" values between two sorted items.

item      index
-----------------
gizmo     1
              <<------ Oh no! no room between 1 and 2.
                       This requires incrementing _every_ item after it
gadget    2
gear      3
toolkit   4
box       5

Instead, do like this (better solution below):

item      index
-----------------
gizmo     100
              <<------ Sweet :). I can re-order 99 (!) items here
                       without having to change anything else
gadget    200
gear      300
toolkit   400
box       500

Even better: here is how Jira solves this problem. Their "rank" (what you call index) is a string value that allows a ton of breathing room in between ranked items.

Here is a real example of a jira database I work with

   id    | jira_rank
---------+------------
 AP-2405 | 0|hzztxk:
 ES-213  | 0|hzztxs:
 AP-2660 | 0|hzztzc:
 AP-2688 | 0|hzztzk:
 AP-2643 | 0|hzztzs:
 AP-2208 | 0|hzztzw:
 AP-2700 | 0|hzztzy:
 AP-2702 | 0|hzztzz:
 AP-2411 | 0|hzztzz:i
 AP-2440 | 0|hzztzz:r

Notice this example hzztzz:i. The advantage of a string rank is that you run out of room between two items, you still don't have to re-rank anything else. You just start appending more characters to the string to narrow down focus.

EDIT: as mentioned in the comments, you can't insert anything between 0|hzztzz: and 0|hzztzz:a. I guess that's why I see jira's database automatically append :i at the end regularly instead of :a to avoid that scenario. If you really want to prevent problems, then I think you can change your algorithm so that (for example) every time you would insert :a at the end, you instead insert :ai. This way you logically guarantee that no ranking will end with the letter a -- which should mean that you will always have "room" to insert more items without having to re-order anything.

I think @a1ex07 is on the right track here (+1). I don't think gaps in itemOrder violate 3NF, but I do worry about a different violation of 3NF (more on this below). We also have to watch out for bad data in the itemOrder field. Here's how I'd start:

create table pages (
  pid int,
  primary key (pid)
);

create table users (
  uid int,
  primary key (uid)
);

create table items (
  iid int,
  primary key (iid)
);

create table details (
  pid int not null references pages(pid),
  uid int not null references users(uid),
  iid int not null references items(iid), 
  itemOrder int,
  primary key (pid, uid, iid),
  unique (pid, uid, itemOrder)
);

The primary key ensures that for each page, for each user, there are unique items. The unique constraint ensures that for each page, for each user, there are unique itemOrders. Here's my worry about 3NF: in this scenario, itemOrder is not fully dependent on the primary key; it depends only on the (pid, uid) parts. That's not even 2NF; and that's a problem. We could include itemOrder in the primary key, but then I worry that it might not be minimal, as PKs need to be. We might need to decompose this into more tables. Still thinking . . .

[ EDIT - More thinking on the topic . . . ]

Assumptions

There are users.
There are pages.
There are items.
(page, user) identifies a SET of items.
(page, user) identifies an ordered LIST of slots in which we can store items if we like.
We do not wish to have duplicate items in a (page,user)'s list.

Plan A

Kill the details table, above.

Add a table, ItemsByPageAndUser, to represent the SET of items identified by (page, user).

create table ItemsByPageAndUser (
   pid int not null references pages(pid),
   uid int not null references users(uid),
   iid int not null references items(iid),
  primary key (pid, uid, iid)   
)

Add table, SlotsByPageAndUser, to represent the ordered LIST of slots that might contain items.

create table SlotsByPageAndUser (
   pid       int not null references pages(pid),
   uid       int not null references users(uid),
   slotNum   int not null,
   iidInSlot int          references items(iid),
 primary key (pid, uid, slotNum),   
 foreign key (pid, uid, iid) references ItemsByPageAndUser(pid, uid, iid),
 unique (pid, uid, iid)
)

Note 1: iidInSlot is nullable so that we can have empty slots if we want to. But if there is an item present it has to be checked against the items table.

Note 2: We need the last FK to ensure that we don't add any items that are not in the set of possible items for this (user,page).

Note 3: The unique constraint on (pid, uid, iid) enforces our design goal of having unique items in the list (assumption 6). Without this we could add as many items from the set identified by (page,user) as we like so long as they are in different slots.

Now we have nicely decoupled the items from their slots while preserving their common dependence on (page, user).

This design is certainly in 3NF and might be in BCNF, though I worry about SlotsByPageAndUser in that regard.

The problem is that because of the unique constraint in table SlotsByPageAndUser the cardinality of the relationship between SlotsByPageAndUser and ItemsByPageAndUser is one-to-one. In general, 1-1 relationships that are not entity subtypes are wrong. There are exceptions, of course, and maybe this is one. But maybe there's an even better way . . .

Plan B

Kill the SlotsByPageAndUser table.
Add a slotNum column to ItemsByPageAndUser.
Add a unique constraint on (pid, uid, iid) to ItemsByPageAndUser.

Now it's:

create table ItemsByPageAndUser (
   pid     int not null references pages(pid),
   uid     int not null references users(uid),
   iid     int not null references items(iid),
   slotNum int,
 primary key (pid, uid, iid),   
 unique (pid, uid, slotNum)
)

Note 4: Leaving slotNum nullable preserves our ability to specify items in the set that are not in the list. But . . .

Note 5: Putting a unique constraint on a expression involving a nullable column might cause "interesting" results in some databases. I think it will work as we intend it to in Postgres. (See this discussion here on SO.) For other databases, your mileage may vary.

Now there is no messy 1-1 relationship hanging around, so that's better. It's still 3NF as the only non-key attribute (slotNum) depends on the key, the whole key, and nothing but the key. (You can't ask about slotNum without telling me what page, user, and item you are talking about.)

It's not BCNF because [ (pid, uid, iid) -> slotNum ] and [(pid,uid,slotNum) -> iid ]. But that's why we have the unique constraint on (pid, uid, slotNum) which prevents the data from getting into an inconsistent state.

I think this is a workable solution.

You could add a new character (nvarchar) column to the Page table called order that contains a delimited list of iid's in the order you prefer, i.e. 1,4,3,2. The advantage is just one field in one table to maintain - the obvious disadvantage would be the need to write a utility function(s) to convert between the character and numeric types which in reality probably wouldn't take too long.

If you expect number of items is not huge, you can use a bit modified version of your first approach. Just make gap between consecutive indexes. For example, first item has index 100, second 200, etc. This way you don't have to update all indexes every time, only if you cannot find a gap

Best representation of an ordered list in a database?

Related

Recent Posts