Is it preferred to use end-time or duration for events in sql? [closed]_问答_开发者

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.

Want to improve this开发者_高级运维 question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.

Closed 2 years ago.

Improve this question

My gut tells me that start time and end time would be better than start time and duration in general, but I'm wondering if there are some concrete advantages or disadvantages to the differing methods.

The advantage for strttime and endtime I am seeing is that if you want to call all events active during a certain time period you don't have to look outside that time period.

(this is for events that are not likely to change much after initial input and are tied to a specific time, if that makes a difference)

I do not see it as a preference or a personal choice. Computer Science is, well, a science, and we are programming machinery, not a sensitive child.

Re-inventing the Wheel

Entire books have been written on the subject of Temporal Data in Relational Databases, by giants of the industry. Codd has passed on, but his colleague and co-author C J Date, and recently H Darwen carry on the work of progressing and refining the Relational Model, in The Third Manifesto. The seminal book on the subject is Temporal Data & the Relational Model by C J Date, Hugh Darwen, and Nikos A Lorentzos.

There are many who post opinions and personal choices re CS subjects as if they were choosing ice cream. This is due to not having had any formal training, and thus treating their CS task as if they were the only person on the planet who had come across that problem, and found a solution. Basically they re-invent the wheel from scratch, as if there were no other wheels in existence. A lot of time and effort can be saved by reading technical material (that excludes Wikipedia and MS publications).

Buy a Modern Wheel

Temporal Data has been a problem that has been worked with by thousands of data modellers following the RM and trying to implement good solutions. Some of them are good and others not. But now we have the work of giants, seriously researched, and with solutions and prescribed treatment provided. As before, these will eventually be implemented in the SQL Standard. PostgreSQL already has a couple of the required functions (the authors are part of TTM).

Therefore we can take those solutions and prescriptions, which will be (a) future-proofed and (b) reliable (unlike the thousands of not-so-good Temporal databases that currently exist), rather than relying on either personal opinion, or popular votes on some web-site. Needless to say, the code will be much easier as well.

Inspect Before Purchase

If you do some googling, beware that there are also really bad "books" available. These are published under the banner of MS and Oracle, by PhDs who spend their lives at the ice cream parlour. Because they did not read and understand the textbooks, they have a shallow understanding of the problem, and invent quite incorrect "solutions". Then they proceed to provide massive solutions, not to Temporal data, but to the massive problems inherent in their "solutions". You will be locked into problems that have been identified and sole; and into implementing triggers and all sorts of unnecessary code. Anything available free is worth exactly the price you paid for it.

Temporal Data

So I will try to simplify the Temporal problem, and paraphrase the guidance from the textbook, for the scope of your question. Simple rules, taking both Normalisation and Temporal requirements into account, as well as usage that you have not foreseen.

First and foremost, use the correct Datatype for any kind of Temporal column. That means DATETIME or SMALLDATETIME, depending on the resolution and range that you require. Where only DATE or TIME portion is required , you can use that. This allows you to perform date & time arithmetic using SQL function, directly in your WHERE clause.
Second, make sure that you use really clear names for the columns and variables.
There are three types of Temporal Data. It is all about categorising the properly, so that the treatment (planned and unplanned) is easy (which is why yours is a good question, and why I provide a full explanation). The advantage is much simpler SQL using inline Date/Time functions (you do not need the planned Temporal SQL functions). Always store:

Instant as SMALL/DATETIME, eg. UpdatedDtm

Interval as INTEGER, clearly identifying the Unit in the column name, eg. IntervalSec or NumDays

There are some technicians who argue that Interval should be stored in DATETIME, regardless of the component being used, as (eg) seconds or months since midnight 01 Jan 1900, etc. That is fine, but requires more unwieldy (not complex) code both in the initial storage and whenever it is extracted.
whatever you choose, be consistent.

Period or Duration. This is defined as the time period between two separate Instants. Storage depends on whether the Period is conjunct or disjunct.

For conjunct Periods, ~~as in your Event requirement~~: use one SMALL/DATETIME for EventDateTime; the end of the Period can be derived from the beginning of the Period of the next row, and EndDateTime should not be stored.
For disjunct Periods, with gaps in-between yes, you need 2 x SMALL/DATETIMEs, eg. a RentedFrom and a RentedTo. If it is in the same row.
Period or Duration across rows merely need the ending Instant to be stored in some other row. ExerciseStart is the Event.DateTime of the X1 Event row, and ExerciseEnd is the Event.DateTime of the X9 Event row.

Therefore Period or Duration stored as an Interval is simply incorrect, not subject to opinion.

Data Duplication

Separately, in a Normalised database, ie. where EndDateTime is not stored (unless disjoint, as per above), storing a datum that can be derived will introduce an Update Anomaly where there was none.

with one EndDateTime, you have version of a the truth in one place; where as with duplicated data, you have a second version of the fact in another column:
which breaks 1NF
the two facts need to be maintained (updated) together, transactionally, and are at the risk of being out of synch
different queries could yeild different results, due to two versions of the truth
All easily avoided by maintaining the science. The return (insignificant increase in speed of single query) is not worth destroying the integrity of the data for.

Response to Comments

could you expand a little bit on the practical difference between conjunct and disjunct and the direct practical effect of these concepts on db design? (as I understand the difference, the exercise and temp-basal in my database are disjunct because they are distinct events separated by whitespace.. whereas basal itself would be conjunct because there's always a value)

Not quite. In your Db (as far as I understand it so far):

All the Events are Instants, not conjunct or disjunct Periods
The exceptions are Exercise and TempBasal, for which the ending Instant is stored, and therefore they have Periods, with whitespace between the Periods; thus they are disjunct.
I think you want to identify more Durations, such a ActiveInsulinPeriod and ActiveCarbPeriod, etc, but so far they only have an Event (Instant) that is causative.
I don't think you have any conjunct Periods (there may well be, but I am hard pressed to identify any. I retract what I said (When they were Readings, they looked conjunct, but we have progressed).
For a simple example of conjunct Periods, that we can work with re practical effect, please refer to this time-series question. The text and perhaps the code may be of value, so I have linked the Q/A, but I particularly want you the look at the Data Model. Ignore the three implementation options, they are irrelevant to this context.
Every Period in that database is Conjunct. A Product is always in some Status. The End-DateTime of any Period is the Start-DateTime of the next row for the Product.

It entirely depends on what you want to do with the data. As you say, you can filter by end time if you store that. On the other hand, if you want to find "all events lasting more than an hour" then the duration would be most useful.

Of course, you could always store both if necessary.

The important thing is: do you know how you're going to want to use the data?

EDIT: Just to add a little more meat, depending on the database you're using, you may wish to consider using a view: store only (say) the start time and duration, but have a view which exposes the start time, duration and computed end time. If you need to query against all three columns (whether together or separately) you'll want to check what support your database has for indexing a view column. This has the benefits of convenience and clarity, but without the downside of data redundancy (having to keep the "spare" column in sync with the other two). On the other hand, it's more complicated and requires more support from your database.

End - Start = Duration.
One could argue you could even use End and Duration, so there really is no difference in any of the combinations.

Except for the triviality that you need the column included to filter on it, so include

duration: if you need to filter by duration of execution time
start + end: if you need to trap for events that both start and end within a timeframe