How to store address in database
I am developing a CRM application that stores some data on companies we work with. Such as for example: CEO name and physical address of their head office. I will often need to look up for companies located in particular city and then sort the search result by street name.
I know that proper solution will most likely be something like an address column of the integer type, which will point to the address table, which itself will contain other columns like state, city, street, housing_number, office_number all of which will itself be either an integers pointing to related tables (city, state, street) or the final piece of data (housing_number, office_number).
The problem is not just the fact that I'm much more comfortable working with something like one or two linked tables, rather than using difficult JOINs across 3, 4 (like the design i supposed earlier) or even more tables, but also that i don't really see the point of not doing something like this:
| id | name | ceo_name | city | street | house | office |
|-----|-----------------|-------------|-------------|------------------|--------|--------|
| 1 | Company Name 1 | CEO Name 1 | New-York | 5th Ave | 22 | 12 |
| 2 | Company Name 2 | CEO Name 2 | New-York | 44th St. | 42 | 88 |
| 3 | Company Name 3 | CEO Name 3 | Boston | Irish Lane | 2 | 14 |
| 4 | Company Name 4 | CEO Name 4 | Washington | Tahoe boulevard | 54 | 19 |
What problem can i ran into if i implement such a solution? I have all atomics so if the need rises i can always implement the 3-NF solution later on.
sql database-design street-address
add a comment |
I am developing a CRM application that stores some data on companies we work with. Such as for example: CEO name and physical address of their head office. I will often need to look up for companies located in particular city and then sort the search result by street name.
I know that proper solution will most likely be something like an address column of the integer type, which will point to the address table, which itself will contain other columns like state, city, street, housing_number, office_number all of which will itself be either an integers pointing to related tables (city, state, street) or the final piece of data (housing_number, office_number).
The problem is not just the fact that I'm much more comfortable working with something like one or two linked tables, rather than using difficult JOINs across 3, 4 (like the design i supposed earlier) or even more tables, but also that i don't really see the point of not doing something like this:
| id | name | ceo_name | city | street | house | office |
|-----|-----------------|-------------|-------------|------------------|--------|--------|
| 1 | Company Name 1 | CEO Name 1 | New-York | 5th Ave | 22 | 12 |
| 2 | Company Name 2 | CEO Name 2 | New-York | 44th St. | 42 | 88 |
| 3 | Company Name 3 | CEO Name 3 | Boston | Irish Lane | 2 | 14 |
| 4 | Company Name 4 | CEO Name 4 | Washington | Tahoe boulevard | 54 | 19 |
What problem can i ran into if i implement such a solution? I have all atomics so if the need rises i can always implement the 3-NF solution later on.
sql database-design street-address
add a comment |
I am developing a CRM application that stores some data on companies we work with. Such as for example: CEO name and physical address of their head office. I will often need to look up for companies located in particular city and then sort the search result by street name.
I know that proper solution will most likely be something like an address column of the integer type, which will point to the address table, which itself will contain other columns like state, city, street, housing_number, office_number all of which will itself be either an integers pointing to related tables (city, state, street) or the final piece of data (housing_number, office_number).
The problem is not just the fact that I'm much more comfortable working with something like one or two linked tables, rather than using difficult JOINs across 3, 4 (like the design i supposed earlier) or even more tables, but also that i don't really see the point of not doing something like this:
| id | name | ceo_name | city | street | house | office |
|-----|-----------------|-------------|-------------|------------------|--------|--------|
| 1 | Company Name 1 | CEO Name 1 | New-York | 5th Ave | 22 | 12 |
| 2 | Company Name 2 | CEO Name 2 | New-York | 44th St. | 42 | 88 |
| 3 | Company Name 3 | CEO Name 3 | Boston | Irish Lane | 2 | 14 |
| 4 | Company Name 4 | CEO Name 4 | Washington | Tahoe boulevard | 54 | 19 |
What problem can i ran into if i implement such a solution? I have all atomics so if the need rises i can always implement the 3-NF solution later on.
sql database-design street-address
I am developing a CRM application that stores some data on companies we work with. Such as for example: CEO name and physical address of their head office. I will often need to look up for companies located in particular city and then sort the search result by street name.
I know that proper solution will most likely be something like an address column of the integer type, which will point to the address table, which itself will contain other columns like state, city, street, housing_number, office_number all of which will itself be either an integers pointing to related tables (city, state, street) or the final piece of data (housing_number, office_number).
The problem is not just the fact that I'm much more comfortable working with something like one or two linked tables, rather than using difficult JOINs across 3, 4 (like the design i supposed earlier) or even more tables, but also that i don't really see the point of not doing something like this:
| id | name | ceo_name | city | street | house | office |
|-----|-----------------|-------------|-------------|------------------|--------|--------|
| 1 | Company Name 1 | CEO Name 1 | New-York | 5th Ave | 22 | 12 |
| 2 | Company Name 2 | CEO Name 2 | New-York | 44th St. | 42 | 88 |
| 3 | Company Name 3 | CEO Name 3 | Boston | Irish Lane | 2 | 14 |
| 4 | Company Name 4 | CEO Name 4 | Washington | Tahoe boulevard | 54 | 19 |
What problem can i ran into if i implement such a solution? I have all atomics so if the need rises i can always implement the 3-NF solution later on.
sql database-design street-address
sql database-design street-address
edited Jan 18 at 13:30
a_horse_with_no_name
294k46451545
294k46451545
asked Jan 18 at 12:23
tnsaturdaytnsaturday
358
358
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Listen to the first proposition of yours is the correct by the book solution but it does require feeling comfortable in SQL and relational databases, like everything in computer science it's all a question of efficiency, how big would the table be? Remember that in SQL the engine always draws all of the columns even if u emit some in your SELECT if you will have data types that are heavier (chars that take more memory bytes etc.) then obviously the table will become heavier and heavier. If your use will only be drawing the user by id (primary key) then your queries will never really be slow no matter how big they get.
It's all a question of scaling and what you're going to do with that data when constructing it like your first suggestion you plan for the future but you sacrifice time at the present.
Well, it'll hardly be a few thousand rows in this database. More likely 1500 - 2000 rows with city and street being a utf8_general_ci VARCHAR(40) string. And i'm not very comfortable with SQL and the thing is now i'm prototyping it in PHP + MySQL just to see how things get going, but the final product will be in some framework and will use some kind of ORM like ActiveRecord.
– tnsaturday
Jan 18 at 12:57
If the maximum size will be 1500-2000 and considering you will index the fields you will be drawing the data on then there's no problem doing what you suggested, it's just not future-proof that is all.
– Michael Ostrovsky
Jan 18 at 12:58
add a comment |
Actual schema for the similar db application, maybe used as a boilerplate:

add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54253971%2fhow-to-store-address-in-database%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Listen to the first proposition of yours is the correct by the book solution but it does require feeling comfortable in SQL and relational databases, like everything in computer science it's all a question of efficiency, how big would the table be? Remember that in SQL the engine always draws all of the columns even if u emit some in your SELECT if you will have data types that are heavier (chars that take more memory bytes etc.) then obviously the table will become heavier and heavier. If your use will only be drawing the user by id (primary key) then your queries will never really be slow no matter how big they get.
It's all a question of scaling and what you're going to do with that data when constructing it like your first suggestion you plan for the future but you sacrifice time at the present.
Well, it'll hardly be a few thousand rows in this database. More likely 1500 - 2000 rows with city and street being a utf8_general_ci VARCHAR(40) string. And i'm not very comfortable with SQL and the thing is now i'm prototyping it in PHP + MySQL just to see how things get going, but the final product will be in some framework and will use some kind of ORM like ActiveRecord.
– tnsaturday
Jan 18 at 12:57
If the maximum size will be 1500-2000 and considering you will index the fields you will be drawing the data on then there's no problem doing what you suggested, it's just not future-proof that is all.
– Michael Ostrovsky
Jan 18 at 12:58
add a comment |
Listen to the first proposition of yours is the correct by the book solution but it does require feeling comfortable in SQL and relational databases, like everything in computer science it's all a question of efficiency, how big would the table be? Remember that in SQL the engine always draws all of the columns even if u emit some in your SELECT if you will have data types that are heavier (chars that take more memory bytes etc.) then obviously the table will become heavier and heavier. If your use will only be drawing the user by id (primary key) then your queries will never really be slow no matter how big they get.
It's all a question of scaling and what you're going to do with that data when constructing it like your first suggestion you plan for the future but you sacrifice time at the present.
Well, it'll hardly be a few thousand rows in this database. More likely 1500 - 2000 rows with city and street being a utf8_general_ci VARCHAR(40) string. And i'm not very comfortable with SQL and the thing is now i'm prototyping it in PHP + MySQL just to see how things get going, but the final product will be in some framework and will use some kind of ORM like ActiveRecord.
– tnsaturday
Jan 18 at 12:57
If the maximum size will be 1500-2000 and considering you will index the fields you will be drawing the data on then there's no problem doing what you suggested, it's just not future-proof that is all.
– Michael Ostrovsky
Jan 18 at 12:58
add a comment |
Listen to the first proposition of yours is the correct by the book solution but it does require feeling comfortable in SQL and relational databases, like everything in computer science it's all a question of efficiency, how big would the table be? Remember that in SQL the engine always draws all of the columns even if u emit some in your SELECT if you will have data types that are heavier (chars that take more memory bytes etc.) then obviously the table will become heavier and heavier. If your use will only be drawing the user by id (primary key) then your queries will never really be slow no matter how big they get.
It's all a question of scaling and what you're going to do with that data when constructing it like your first suggestion you plan for the future but you sacrifice time at the present.
Listen to the first proposition of yours is the correct by the book solution but it does require feeling comfortable in SQL and relational databases, like everything in computer science it's all a question of efficiency, how big would the table be? Remember that in SQL the engine always draws all of the columns even if u emit some in your SELECT if you will have data types that are heavier (chars that take more memory bytes etc.) then obviously the table will become heavier and heavier. If your use will only be drawing the user by id (primary key) then your queries will never really be slow no matter how big they get.
It's all a question of scaling and what you're going to do with that data when constructing it like your first suggestion you plan for the future but you sacrifice time at the present.
answered Jan 18 at 12:46
Michael OstrovskyMichael Ostrovsky
12311
12311
Well, it'll hardly be a few thousand rows in this database. More likely 1500 - 2000 rows with city and street being a utf8_general_ci VARCHAR(40) string. And i'm not very comfortable with SQL and the thing is now i'm prototyping it in PHP + MySQL just to see how things get going, but the final product will be in some framework and will use some kind of ORM like ActiveRecord.
– tnsaturday
Jan 18 at 12:57
If the maximum size will be 1500-2000 and considering you will index the fields you will be drawing the data on then there's no problem doing what you suggested, it's just not future-proof that is all.
– Michael Ostrovsky
Jan 18 at 12:58
add a comment |
Well, it'll hardly be a few thousand rows in this database. More likely 1500 - 2000 rows with city and street being a utf8_general_ci VARCHAR(40) string. And i'm not very comfortable with SQL and the thing is now i'm prototyping it in PHP + MySQL just to see how things get going, but the final product will be in some framework and will use some kind of ORM like ActiveRecord.
– tnsaturday
Jan 18 at 12:57
If the maximum size will be 1500-2000 and considering you will index the fields you will be drawing the data on then there's no problem doing what you suggested, it's just not future-proof that is all.
– Michael Ostrovsky
Jan 18 at 12:58
Well, it'll hardly be a few thousand rows in this database. More likely 1500 - 2000 rows with city and street being a utf8_general_ci VARCHAR(40) string. And i'm not very comfortable with SQL and the thing is now i'm prototyping it in PHP + MySQL just to see how things get going, but the final product will be in some framework and will use some kind of ORM like ActiveRecord.
– tnsaturday
Jan 18 at 12:57
Well, it'll hardly be a few thousand rows in this database. More likely 1500 - 2000 rows with city and street being a utf8_general_ci VARCHAR(40) string. And i'm not very comfortable with SQL and the thing is now i'm prototyping it in PHP + MySQL just to see how things get going, but the final product will be in some framework and will use some kind of ORM like ActiveRecord.
– tnsaturday
Jan 18 at 12:57
If the maximum size will be 1500-2000 and considering you will index the fields you will be drawing the data on then there's no problem doing what you suggested, it's just not future-proof that is all.
– Michael Ostrovsky
Jan 18 at 12:58
If the maximum size will be 1500-2000 and considering you will index the fields you will be drawing the data on then there's no problem doing what you suggested, it's just not future-proof that is all.
– Michael Ostrovsky
Jan 18 at 12:58
add a comment |
Actual schema for the similar db application, maybe used as a boilerplate:

add a comment |
Actual schema for the similar db application, maybe used as a boilerplate:

add a comment |
Actual schema for the similar db application, maybe used as a boilerplate:

Actual schema for the similar db application, maybe used as a boilerplate:

answered 9 hours ago
tnsaturdaytnsaturday
358
358
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54253971%2fhow-to-store-address-in-database%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown