We Keep Coding

Implementing array like structure in MySQL database

I'm currently trying to implement a table within my SQL database. I'm looking to create a table that can be used to check if a user on my website has liked a post. The idea is to have a table with one axes iterating the posts on the website and one axis with the userID values iterated. Then in each box hold a binary value as to whether they have liked it. I'm just wondering how I would implement this. I have been doing this in C# by creating classes and converting these into server side code using Entity Framework 6.4.0.
Any help would be great.

What you are suggesting is a normalized structure for your use case; it would, for example, require adding more columns to the table everytime a post is added to the database (or a user, depending on whether you use rows or columns).
A typical database solution would be a bridge table, that represents the many to many relationship between posts and users.
Say table user_like_posts, with the following columns:
user_id -- foreign key to the "users" table
post_id -- foreign key to the "posts" table
You may want to add additional columns to the bridge table, like the timestamp when the user liked the post, or the-like.

Will every user have an opinion on every post? If not then you don't have the data you described. If users and posts are not related one to one then you have a simple relation. For each post that a user likes (or dislikes?) there is an entry for that user:
Likes/Dislikes Table:
User identifier
Post identifier
The binary value that indicates like or dislike
If the table only indicates 'likes' then you don't need the last column.
A design like this would work even if every user and every post is in this table. The table might get large in a hurry and keep growing every time you introduced a new post. But if this table only includes actual 'likes' (and/or 'dislikes') it should be manageable.
For a class you just have an enumerable that has the posts 'liked' (and possibly another that indicates the posts 'disliked.')
Think about what you are trying to represent. Ask yourself questions. Don't just latch on to an idea and try to 'do' it.
Will every user have an opinion of every post?
Do you need to store both 'likes' and 'dislikes?'
Can there be a 'neutral' opinion on a post?
Can users change their opinions?
You can only discover the correct data structure by asking and answering all the questions that matter to your situation (my list is not exhaustive - it is only an example.)

Using a SQL table to handle state transitions

I am working on a Order (MVC) system where the orders transition to different states, i.e new order, paid, shipped, etc. Each state can have multiple transitions. Originally I thought I would have a status table with an ID and Description and then a transition table that would have current status and transitions status, with each transition on a single row. In order to populate a selection box, I would have to do the join to get the descriptions. Now I am thinking I could do it all in one table and add a comma separate column which would list the possible transitions. Is this a good idea or is there a better way?

Any RDBMS promotes database normalization, There are 6 forms of database normalization. Normally if you can get to first three it is good enough.
The first Normal Form states: you should have only one piece of information in a column and a column should store on one piece/Type of information.
Now if your case when you are try to save a comma deliminited list of transitions. if you have to pick only record with a particular type of transitions state?? it will be a messy query.
Also imagine a scenario where you have to update a column for a particular record when transition state is changed, again a very messy , error prone and performance killer query.
Therefore follow the basic rules of Database Normalization, and stick to your 1st which was to create a separate table and use IDs to define transition state, and add a new row whenever a transition changes.
My Suggestion
Simply Have one column for [current status] and one Column for [transition], add a new row everytime any of the values change.
Also a datetime column with default value to current datetime. Which will allow you to go back in history and see different status and transition states of a record in point in time.
Have only one column in only One table which stores this information reference this column in other tables if you need to.

How to deal with deprecated values in (country-)code lists

Let's say we have a code list of all the countries including their country codes. The country code is primary key of the Countries table and it is used as a foreign key in many places in the database. In my application the countries are usually displayed as dropdowns on multiple forms.
Some of the countries, that used to exists in the past, don't exist any more, for example Serbia and Montenegro, which had the country code of SCG.
I have two objectives:
don't allow the user to use these old values (so these values should not be visible in dropdowns when inserting data)
the user should still be able to (readonly) open old stuff and in this case the deprecated values should be visible in dropdowns.
I see two options:
Rename deprecated values, for instance from 'CountryName' to '!!!!!CountryName'. This approach is the easiest to implement, but with obvious drawbacks.
Add IsActive column to Countries table and set it to false for all deprecated values and true for all other. On all the forms where the user can insert data, display only values which are active. On the readonly forms we can display all values (including deprecated ones) so the user will be able to display old data. But on some of my forms the user should be able to also edit data, which means that the deprecated values should be hidden from him. That means, that each dropbox should have some initialization logic like this: if the data displayed is readonly, then include deprecated values in dropbox and if the data is for edit also, then exclude them. But this is a lot of work and error prone too.
And other ideas?

I deal with this scenario a lot, and use the 'Active' flag to solve the problem, much as you described. When I populate a drop-down list with values, I only load 'active' data and include upto 1 deprecated value, but only if it is being used. (i.e. if I am looking at a person record, and that person has a deprecated country, then that country would be included in the Drop-downlist along with the active countries. I do this in read-only AND in edit modes, because in my cases, if a person record (for example) has a deprecated country listed, they can continue to use it, but once they change it to a non-deprecated country, and then save it, they can never switch back (your use case may vary).
So the key differences is, even in read-only mode I don't add all the deprecated countries to the DDL, just the deprecated country that applies to the record I am looking at, and even then, it is only if that record was already in use.
Here is an example of the logic I use when loading the drop down list:
protected void LoadSourceDropdownList(bool AddingNewRecord, int ExistingCode)
{
using (Entities db = new Entities())
{
if (AddingNewRecord) // when we are adding a new record, only show 'active' items in the drop-downlist.
ddlSource.DataSource = (from q in db.zLeadSources where (q.Active == true) select q);
else // for existing records, show all active items AND the current value.
ddlSource.DataSource = (from q in db.zLeadSources where ((q.Active == true) || (q.Code == ExistingCode)) select q);
ddlSource.DataValueField = "Code";
ddlSource.DataTextField = "Description";
ddlSource.DataBind();
ddlSource.Items.Insert(0, "--Select--");
ddlSource.Items[0].Value = "0";
}
}

If you are displaying the record as read-only, why bother loading the standing data at all?
Here's what I would do:
the record will contain the country code in any case, I would also propose returning the country description (which admittedly makes things less efficient), but when the user loads "old stuff", the business service recognises that this record will be read only, and you don't bother loading the country list (which would make things more efficient).
in my presentation service I will then generally do a check to see whether the list of countries is null. If not (r/w) load the data into the list box, if so (r/o) populate the list box from the data in the record - a single entry in the list equals read-only.

You can filter with CollectionViewSource or you could just create a Public Enumerable that filters the full list using LINQ.
CollectionViewSource Class
LINQ The FieldDef.DispSearch is the active condition. IEnumerable is a little better performance than List.
public IEnumerable<FieldDefApplied> FieldDefsAppliedSearch
{
get
{
return fieldDefsApplied.Where(df => df.FieldDef.DispSearch).OrderBy(df => df.FieldDef.DispName);
}
}

Why would you still want to display (for instance) customer-addresses with their OLD country-code?
If I understand correctly, you currently still have 'address'-records that still point to 'Serbia and Montenegro'. I think if you solve that problem, your current question would be none-existent.
The term "country" is perhaps a little misleading: not all the "countries" in ISO 3166 are actually independent. Rather, many of them are geographically separate territories that are legally portions or dependencies of other countries.
Also note that 'withdrawn country-codes' are reserved for 5 years, meaning that after 5 years they may be reused. So moving away from using the country-code itself as primary key would make sense to me, especially if for historical reasons you would need to back-track previous country-codes.
So why not make the 'withdrawn' field/table that points to the new country-id's. You can still check (in sql for instance, since you were already using a table) if this field is empty or not to get a true/false check if you need it.
The way I see it: "Country" codes may change, country's may merge and country's may divide.
If country's change or merge, you can update your address-records with a simple query.
If country's divide, you need a way to determine what address is part of what country.
You could use some automated system do do this (and write lengthly books about it).
OR
(when it is a forum like site), you could ask the users that still have a withdrawn country that points to multiple alternatives in their account to update their country-entry at login, where they can only choose from the list of new country's that are specified in the withdrawn field.
Think of this simplified country-table setup:
id cc cn withdrawn
1 DE Germany
2 CS Serbia and Montenegro 6,7
3 RH Southern Rhodesia 5
4 NL The Netherlands
5 ZW Zimbabwe
6 RS Serbia
7 ME Montenegro
In this example, address-records with country-id 3, get updated with a query to country-id 5, no user interaction (or other solution) needed.
But address-records that specify country-id 2 will be asked to select country-id 6 or 7 (of course in the text presented to the user you use the country-name) or are selected to perform your custom automated update routine on.
Also note: 'withdrawn' is a repeating group and as such you could/should make it into a separate table.
Implementing this idea (without downtime) in your scenario:
sql statement to build a new country-table with numerical id's as primary key.
sql statement to update address-records with new field 'country-id' and fill this field with the country-id from the new country-table that corresponds with country-code specified in that record's address-field.
(sql statement to) create the withdrawn table and populate the correct data with in it.
then rewrite your the sql statements that supply your forms with data
add the check and 'ask user to update country'-routine
let new forms go live
wait/see for unintended bugs
delete old country-table and (now unused) country-code column from the "address"-table
I am very curious what other experts think about this idea!!

UserID number not in order after deleting a user

I have a table called tblUserLogin. One of the columns is labeled UserID. Evertime I add a user it numbers them in order (ex. 1, 2, 3). If I delete numbers 2 & 3 and then add another user the user has a UserID of 4, the next number in line. Should it be number 2? Is this a setting in the properties window that needs adjusted? Thanks

No, it absolutely should not be 2. It's presumably meant to be a unique identifier. If some other system still knows about user ID 2, then when it asks your system for user 2 you should be able to say that the user doesn't exist - not give back information about the wrong user.
Reusing identifiers would be a really bad idea, basically. Once an identifier has been allocated to an entity, there should be no way of the same identifier (in the same context) referring to a different entity, nor should there be any way of changing the identifier used for that entity.

You've not stated which database type you're using, however:
The UserID column is probably an identity column. This means it will take the next value, that has never been used (subject seed and increment settings if you're in sql server).
You can't get this to take unused values without taking on the job of generating these identities yourself.

Assuming you're using a SQL Server IDENTITY column, then that's the correct and expected behaviour. However, if you'd like to reuse the deleted IDs from the gaps, take a look at Example B from SQL Server Books Online: Using generic syntax for finding gaps in identity values

Storing Data from Forms without creating 100's of tables: ASP.NET and SQL Server

Let me first describe the situation. We host many Alumni events over the course of each year and provide online registration forms for each event. There is a large chunk of data that is common for each event:
An Event with dates, times, managers, internal billing info, etc.
A Registration record with info about the payment and total amount charged per form submission
Bio/Demographic and alumni data about the 1 or more attendees (name, address, degree, etc.)
We store all of the above data within columns in tables as you would expect.
The trouble comes with the 'extra' fields we are asked to put on the forms. Maybe it is a dinner and there is a Veggie or Carnivore option, perhaps there is lodging and there are bed or smoking options, or perhaps there is an optional transportation option. There are tons of weird little "can you add this to the form?" types of requests we receive.
Currently, we JSONify any non-standard data and store it all in one column (per attendee) called 'extras'. We can read this data out in code but it is not well suited to querying. Our internal staff would like to generate a quick report on Veggie dinners needed for instance.
Other than creating a separate table for each form that holds the specific 'extra' data items, are there any other approaches that could make my life (and reporting) easier? Anyone working in a simialr environment?

This is actually one of the toughest problem to solve efficiently. The SQL Server Customer Advisory Team has dedicated a white-paper to the topic which I highly recommend you read: Best Practices for Semantic Data Modeling for Performance and Scalability.
You basically have 3 options:
semantic database (entity-attribute-value)
XML column
sparse columns
Each solution comes with ups and downs. Out of the top of my hat I'd say XML is probably the one that gives you the best balance of power and flexibility, but the optimal solution really depends on lots of factors like data set sizes, frequency at which new attributes are created, the actual process (human operators) that create-populate-use these attributes etc, and not at least your team skill set (some might fare better with an EAV solution, some might fare better with an XML solution). If the attributes are created/managed under a central authority and adding new attributes is a reasonable rare event, then the sparse columns may be a better answer.

Well you could also have the following db structure:
Have a table to store custom attributes
AttributeID
AttributeName
Have a mapping table between events and attributes with:
AttributeID
EventID
AttributeValue
This means you will be able to store custom information per event. And you will be able to reuse your attributes. You can include some metadata as
AttributeType
AllowBlankValue
to the attribute to handle it easily afterwards

Have you considered using XML instead of JSON? Difference: XML is supported (special data type) and has query integration ;)

quick and dirty, but actually nice for querying: simply add new columns. it's not like the empty entries in the previous table should cost a lot.
more databasy solution: you'll have something like an event ID in your table. You can link this to an n:m table connecting events to additional fields. And then store the additional field data in a table with additional_field_id, record_id (from the original table) and the actual value. Probably creates ugly queries, but seems politically correct in terms of database design.
I understand "NoSQL" (not only sql ;) databases like couchdb let you store arbitrary fields per record, but since you're already with SQL Server, I guess that's not an option.

This is the solution that we first proposed in ASP.NET Forums (that later became Community Server), and that the ASP.NET team built a similar version of in the ASP.NET 2.0 Membership when they released it:
Property Bags on your domain objects
For example:
Event.Profile() or in your case, Event.Extras().
Basically, a property bag is a serialized collection of data stored in a name/value pair in a column (or columns). The ASP.NET 2.0 Membership went the route of storing names in a semi-colon delimited list, and values in the same:
Table: aspnet_Profile
Column: PropertyNames (separated by semi-colons, and has start index and end index)
Column: PropertyValues (separated by semi-colons, and only stores the string value)
The downside to that approach is it is all strings, and manually has to be parsed (even though the membership system does it for you automatically).
Recently, my current method is I've built FormCollection and NameValueCollection C# extension methods that automatically serialize the collections to an XML result. And I store that XML in the table in it's own column associated with that entity. I also have a deserializer C# extension on XElement that deserializes that data back to the collection at runtime.
This gives you the power of actually querying those properties in XML, via SQL (though, that can be slow though - always flatten out your read-only data).
The final note is runtime querying: The general rule we follow is, if you are going to query a property of an entity in normal application logic, then you move that property to an actual column on the table - and create the appropriate indexes. If that data will never be queried directly (for example, Linq-to-Sql or EF), then leave it in the XML Property Bag.
Property Bags gives you the power of extending your domain models however you like, without having to modify the db schema.