5 ms·

You'll regret this decision as soon as you have to integrate with another system that uses separate first and last names. Or as soon as you want to build a sort

You'll regret this decision as soon as you have to integrate with another system that uses separate first and last names. Or as soon as you want to build a sorted list of five thousand names or output a bibliography in a specific format or anything. Technically the right approach to the problem of storing international names would be to store markup: a string with an associated structure and a discriminant: <name lang="en"> <first>Kenneth</first> <middle>Elton</middle> <last>Kesey</last> </name> <name lang="ru"> <given>Fyodor</given> <patronymic>Mikhailovich</patronymic> <surname>Dostoyevsky</surname> </name> <name lang="es"> <given>Gabriel</given> <family-paternal>García</family> <family-maternal>Márquez</family> </name> You can then have precise automated ways to transform this into whatever derived form you need. Using a single name field is just avoiding the problem. Using multiple fields is a maintenance burden, because in most cases fields are not fully independent and you have to update them all to keep the data coherent.

goto11 7y ago
Using markup does not really change anything, that is just a way of serializing a data structure. You can represent the same information in normalized form.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 7y ago
  Of course, I don't mean storing literal XML, but I think it's important to support generic markup in databases. It's not that hard, after all; something like these five tables: Markup (markupId, string) Ns (nsId, uri) QName (qNameId, nsId, localName) Elt (markupId, eltId, qNameId, start, length /* string indices */, level, index /* or other way to represent hierarchy */ ) Attr (eltId, qNameId, value) would be enough to store and fully index any XML out there. I think markup is an important separate data type. We have records, we have scalars, now we have a hybrid type, markup: a string (or maybe a byte/bit stream) + records linked to indexes in this string/stream and maybe forming a hierarchy.
  - eecc 7y ago
    Isn’t that what RDF is all about? Each field being a named property of a resource, the properties themselves being properties of other resources describing the structure of the first properties. And so on, going on as meta as necessary
  - goto11 7y ago
    A database should store the actual data, not some serialized format. You don't store the comma tokens from a CSV file in the databases either - you store data which can be serialized to CSV. The same information could be serialized as CSV, XML or JSON depending on the context. Storing a serialized format as an opaque string or blob might make sense in particular cases.
    - earthboundkid 7y ago
      A) the proposal is crazy. You probably don’t need to know if someone has a patronymn or a kunya or whatever. Base what you store on what you need. B) Storing this as normal data would be an intense pain in the ass to use, for no gain in performance or correctness. Use JSONB, this is what it’s for.
      - lonelappde 7y ago
        This comment is culturally insensitive. You are implicitly assuming that your culture's way of expressing names is all that matters
        goto11 7y ago
        Missing the point. If you just have a single "name" field then you can accommodate any culture perfectly.
        earthboundkid 7y ago
        This fits the 75% use case, but misses things that do come up, like alphabetizing by last name and emails with casual forms of address.
marcosdumay 7y ago
Hum... Who exactly is entering that data onto the database? And are they ok with entering things with that level of detail?
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Your American is showing? It's just a standard name input form but internationalized.
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    Hum... I'm not from the US and do not live there if that's what you are asking. People usually have enough trouble separating the first name from whatever you call the rest of it and deciding on what part goes where, and you expect them to be able to tell what are the cultural roots of the name? Keep in mind that not all names on databases are filled by their owners. Besides, I really doubt I would be able to enter my name into whatever you are designing without some amount of lying.
pezezin 7y ago
What you want is not markup, but tagged unions. It's a real shame SQL and many other languages don't support them. Also, your example about Spanish names doesn't take into account that nowadays parents can choose the order of family names, and that gay marriage has been legal for 15 years. Which reflects a deeper truth: don't make too strong assumptions about reality, for it may change.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 7y ago
  Tagged unions, if I understand what they are, can be done in SQL: create table Foo( fooId primary key autoincrement, type integer /* tag/discriminant */ ); create table FooA(fooId primary key, /* data specific to FooA */ ); create table FooB(fooId primary key, /* data specific to FooB */ ); They're not quite markup though. Markup has a string/stream with associated records. The number of these records, their kind, and their placement varies, so it can handle ordering issues or multiple similar names or missing name (e.g. missing middle name), or ignore parts of name quite naturally.
  - naasking 7y ago
    Yes, you can simulate them, but it's painful.
    - no-s 7y ago
      It's not a simulation, it's a data model for reducing the pain for what's really a hard problem - names we call people are not unique, they are colloquial identifiers (HHOS).
      - naasking 7y ago
        Joined tables on the same primary key are a simulation of tagged unions. Proper tagged unions would solve more concisely and with more clarity.
  - Quekid5 7y ago
zo1 7y ago
There is no need for an arbitrary "markup" that you then restrict based on your use-case (in your case it's some sort international-aware storage of different data). Databases are designed to store data, and storing markup like your example above is basically a misuse on some level. Your example above has a clear structure, and that structure can be encoded as raw data in database tables. So instead of having a generic set of tables (as per your other comment) to "store markup" data, you would rather come up with tables that represent your actual requirement and what that markup is meant to indicate. Some database also have inheritance models which allow you to store the data above quite trivially. You basically have a "base" and then extend it with specific fields for each type (en, ru, es, etc). So please, don't put markup in your database like that. It's a big no-no, and I'm sure your DBAs would tell you that very quickly. Else, just throw that crap into a document-store and make it someone else's problem as is unfortunately all too-common lately.

goto11 7y ago

Using markup does not really change anything, that is just a way of serializing a data structure. You can represent the same information in normalized form.

Mikhail_Edoshin 7y ago
Of course, I don't mean storing literal XML, but I think it's important to support generic markup in databases. It's not that hard, after all; something like these five tables: Markup (markupId, string) Ns (nsId, uri) QName (qNameId, nsId, localName) Elt (markupId, eltId, qNameId, start, length /* string indices */, level, index /* or other way to represent hierarchy */ ) Attr (eltId, qNameId, value) would be enough to store and fully index any XML out there. I think markup is an important separate data type. We have records, we have scalars, now we have a hybrid type, markup: a string (or maybe a byte/bit stream) + records linked to indexes in this string/stream and maybe forming a hierarchy.
- eecc 7y ago
  Isn’t that what RDF is all about? Each field being a named property of a resource, the properties themselves being properties of other resources describing the structure of the first properties. And so on, going on as meta as necessary
- goto11 7y ago
  A database should store the actual data, not some serialized format. You don't store the comma tokens from a CSV file in the databases either - you store data which can be serialized to CSV. The same information could be serialized as CSV, XML or JSON depending on the context. Storing a serialized format as an opaque string or blob might make sense in particular cases.
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    A) the proposal is crazy. You probably don’t need to know if someone has a patronymn or a kunya or whatever. Base what you store on what you need. B) Storing this as normal data would be an intense pain in the ass to use, for no gain in performance or correctness. Use JSONB, this is what it’s for.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      This comment is culturally insensitive. You are implicitly assuming that your culture's way of expressing names is all that matters
      - goto11 7y ago
        Missing the point. If you just have a single "name" field then you can accommodate any culture perfectly.
        earthboundkid 7y ago
        This fits the 75% use case, but misses things that do come up, like alphabetizing by last name and emails with casual forms of address.

marcosdumay 7y ago

Hum... Who exactly is entering that data onto the database? And are they ok with entering things with that level of detail?

lonelappde 7y ago
Your American is showing? It's just a standard name input form but internationalized.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Hum... I'm not from the US and do not live there if that's what you are asking. People usually have enough trouble separating the first name from whatever you call the rest of it and deciding on what part goes where, and you expect them to be able to tell what are the cultural roots of the name? Keep in mind that not all names on databases are filled by their owners. Besides, I really doubt I would be able to enter my name into whatever you are designing without some amount of lying.

pezezin 7y ago

What you want is not markup, but tagged unions. It's a real shame SQL and many other languages don't support them. Also, your example about Spanish names doesn't take into account that nowadays parents can choose the order of family names, and that gay marriage has been legal for 15 years. Which reflects a deeper truth: don't make too strong assumptions about reality, for it may change.

Mikhail_Edoshin 7y ago
Tagged unions, if I understand what they are, can be done in SQL: create table Foo( fooId primary key autoincrement, type integer /* tag/discriminant */ ); create table FooA(fooId primary key, /* data specific to FooA */ ); create table FooB(fooId primary key, /* data specific to FooB */ ); They're not quite markup though. Markup has a string/stream with associated records. The number of these records, their kind, and their placement varies, so it can handle ordering issues or multiple similar names or missing name (e.g. missing middle name), or ignore parts of name quite naturally.
- naasking 7y ago
  Yes, you can simulate them, but it's painful.
  - no-s 7y ago
    It's not a simulation, it's a data model for reducing the pain for what's really a hard problem - names we call people are not unique, they are colloquial identifiers (HHOS).
    - naasking 7y ago
      Joined tables on the same primary key are a simulation of tagged unions. Proper tagged unions would solve more concisely and with more clarity.
- Quekid5 7y ago

zo1 7y ago

There is no need for an arbitrary "markup" that you then restrict based on your use-case (in your case it's some sort international-aware storage of different data). Databases are designed to store data, and storing markup like your example above is basically a misuse on some level. Your example above has a clear structure, and that structure can be encoded as raw data in database tables. So instead of having a generic set of tables (as per your other comment) to "store markup" data, you would rather come up with tables that represent your actual requirement and what that markup is meant to indicate. Some database also have inheritance models which allow you to store the data above quite trivially. You basically have a "base" and then extend it with specific fields for each type (en, ru, es, etc). So please, don't put markup in your database like that. It's a big no-no, and I'm sure your DBAs would tell you that very quickly. Else, just throw that crap into a document-store and make it someone else's problem as is unfortunately all too-common lately.