Is there an agreed ideal schema for tagging

问题

I have a photo website and i want to support tags as my original category bucketing is starting to fail (some pictures are family and vacations, or school and friends). Is there an agreed tagging db schema?

I still want to support having photos as part of an album.

Right now i have a few tables:

Photos

PhotoID
PhotoAlbumID
Caption
Date

Photo Album

AlbumID
AlbumName
AlbumDate

回答1:

There are various schemas which are effective, each with their own performance implications for the common queries you'll need as the number of tagged items grows:

http://howto.philippkeller.com/2005/04/24/Tags-Database-schemas/
http://howto.philippkeller.com/2005/06/19/Tagsystems-performance-tests/

Personally, I like having a tag table and a link table which associates tags with items, as it's denormalized (no duplication of tag names) and I can store additional information in the link table (such as when the item was tagged) when necessary.

You can also add some denormalised data if you're feeling frisky and want simple selects at the cost of the additional data maintenance required by storing usage counts in the tag table, or storing tag names which were used in the item table itself to avoid hitting the link table and tag table for each item, which is useful for displaying multiple items with all their tags and for simple tag versioning... if you're into that sort of thing ;)

回答2:

I've done this in a small system without very many users, but I've wondered before if there was an "accepted" way to manage tags. After reading through the links posted by insin and plenty of other blog posts on tagging, it seems that the accepted way is to store it fully normalized and cache certain things if your data set gets too big.

Since it's a many-many relationship (each tag can belong to any number of photos - each photo can have many tags), relational database theory has you create a photo table, a tag table and a cross-reference table to link them.

photos
  photoid
  caption
  filename
  date

tags
  tagid
  tagname

phototags
  photoid
  tagid

This has scaling problems selecting from really large datasets, but so do all the less-normalized schemas (sorting and filtering by a text field will probably always be slower than using an integer, for example). If you grow as large as delicious or maybe even StackOverflow you'll probably have to do some caching of your tag sets.

Another issue you'll have to face is the issue of tag normalization. This doesn't have anything to do with database normalization - it's just making sure that (for example) the "StackOverflow", "stackoverflow" and "stack overflow" tags are the same. Lots of places disallow whitespace or automatically strip it out. Sometimes you'll see the same thing for punctuation - making "StackOverflow" the same as "Stack-Overflow". Auto-lowercasing is pretty standard. You'll even see special case normalization - like making "c#" the same as "csharp".

Happy tagging!

回答3:

Something like this comes to my mind: add those two tables

Tags

TagID
TagName
TagDescription

PhotoTags

PhotoID
TagID

You can extend this to albums too, having an intersection table between Photo Albums and Tags.

回答4:

I suggest looking to see how established open-source software does it. For example, Gallery stores its meta-data in a database like you do, and is pretty rich.

I don't think you'll find a "standard" schema, though. The closest thing I can think of is the EXIF meta-data format, which is embedded within image files themselves (by cameras, etc).

回答5:

if you want real performance with millions of records, you could store tags in one field, comma separated and retreive records with a full-text index/search daemon like sphinxsearch. All you have to add, is a table listing all tags with a count value to know how often they are attached to an item.

I know it's not the usual way and a little more complicated than a pure database solution, but it's really really fast to search tag related items.

You could use full-text search fonctionnality of your database engine too, but when there's lots of records, most engines tend to be slow.

If it's for a small project, you can go your way, seams good and proper way to do. But I would just share with you this other solution. What do you think of ?

回答6:

In my app BugTracker.NET, I make an assumption that there won't be TOO many bugs. Maybe tens of thousands, but not tens of millions. That assumption allows me to cache the tags and the ids of the items they reference.

In the database, the tags are stored as they are entered, with the bugs, in a comma delimited text field.

When a tag field is added or changed, that kicks off a background thread that selects all bugids and their tags, parses the text, building a map where the key is the tag and the value is a list of all the ids that have that tag. I then cache that map in the Asp.Net Application object.

Below is the code I've just described.

The code could be optimized so that instead of going through all the bugs it just incrementally modified the cached map, but even unoptimized, it works fine.

When somebody does a search using a tag, I look up the value in the map, get the list of ids, and then fetch those bugs using SQL with "where id in (1, 2, 3...)" clause.

    public static void threadproc_tags(object obj)
    {
        System.Web.HttpApplicationState app = (System.Web.HttpApplicationState)obj;

        SortedDictionary<string,List<int>> tags = new SortedDictionary<string,List<int>>();

        // update the cache
        DbUtil dbutil = new DbUtil();
        DataSet ds = dbutil.get_dataset("select bg_id, bg_tags from bugs where isnull(bg_tags,'') <> ''");

        foreach (DataRow dr in ds.Tables[0].Rows)
        {
            string[] labels = btnet.Util.split_string_using_commas((string) dr[1]);

            // for each tag label, build a list of bugids that have that label
            for (int i = 0; i < labels.Length; i++)
            {

                string label = normalize_tag(labels[i]);

                if (label != "")
                {
                    if (!tags.ContainsKey(label))
                    {
                        tags[label] = new List<int>();
                    }

                    tags[label].Add((int)dr[0]);
                }
            }
        }

        app["tags"] = tags;

    }

回答7:

A quick note on how to handle tags:

tagging systems can vary from very rigidly defined tags where creating new ones require explicit extra work (think gmail) to very loose systems where adding as many tags as possible is encouraged (think flickr, or tagging audio content where a transcription may be applied directly as tags).

In general, an easily-indexable media (text!) should have a more rigid system, since the content itself are the tags- additional tags exist more for categorization only. A media that's more difficult to index (images, video) should have a flexible system that encourages many tags, since they are your only hope when searching.

This is important because the database schema you want could change somewhat depending on which end of that spectrum you find yourself.

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/172648/is-there-an-agreed-ideal-schema-for-tagging

标签

sql

schema

tagging