Versioning Database Persisted Objects, How would you?












42















(Not related to versioning the database schema)



Applications that interfaces with databases often have domain objects that are composed with data from many tables. Suppose the application were to support versioning, in the sense of CVS, for these domain objects.



For some arbitry domain object, how would you design a database schema to handle this requirement? Any experience to share?










share|improve this question

























  • See this existing question

    – Matthew Watson
    Sep 24 '08 at 8:01











  • This is actually quite a good question and I'm guessing that since you've accepted my answer a penny must have dropped. IMO this ad-hoc history tracking is one of the cardinal architectural sins of Insurance systems (an area that I work in). +1

    – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
    Sep 24 '08 at 9:31






  • 1





    I accepted your answer because the links you provided gave me the knowledge I needed to make an informed decision. Being given enough knowledge to answer the question yourself is a superior way of learning, than just being spoon-fed generic answers.

    – Chris Vest
    Sep 25 '08 at 16:25











  • Glad to be of help - I've found that doing a bit of web research and including the fan-out is a good sweet spot for stackoverflow answers. Many of my better (and more popular) answers have been done in this format, and it seems to be appreciated.

    – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
    Oct 8 '08 at 10:22
















42















(Not related to versioning the database schema)



Applications that interfaces with databases often have domain objects that are composed with data from many tables. Suppose the application were to support versioning, in the sense of CVS, for these domain objects.



For some arbitry domain object, how would you design a database schema to handle this requirement? Any experience to share?










share|improve this question

























  • See this existing question

    – Matthew Watson
    Sep 24 '08 at 8:01











  • This is actually quite a good question and I'm guessing that since you've accepted my answer a penny must have dropped. IMO this ad-hoc history tracking is one of the cardinal architectural sins of Insurance systems (an area that I work in). +1

    – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
    Sep 24 '08 at 9:31






  • 1





    I accepted your answer because the links you provided gave me the knowledge I needed to make an informed decision. Being given enough knowledge to answer the question yourself is a superior way of learning, than just being spoon-fed generic answers.

    – Chris Vest
    Sep 25 '08 at 16:25











  • Glad to be of help - I've found that doing a bit of web research and including the fan-out is a good sweet spot for stackoverflow answers. Many of my better (and more popular) answers have been done in this format, and it seems to be appreciated.

    – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
    Oct 8 '08 at 10:22














42












42








42


22






(Not related to versioning the database schema)



Applications that interfaces with databases often have domain objects that are composed with data from many tables. Suppose the application were to support versioning, in the sense of CVS, for these domain objects.



For some arbitry domain object, how would you design a database schema to handle this requirement? Any experience to share?










share|improve this question
















(Not related to versioning the database schema)



Applications that interfaces with databases often have domain objects that are composed with data from many tables. Suppose the application were to support versioning, in the sense of CVS, for these domain objects.



For some arbitry domain object, how would you design a database schema to handle this requirement? Any experience to share?







database database-design versioning






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Sep 24 '08 at 10:04









David Schmitt

43.7k24105155




43.7k24105155










asked Sep 24 '08 at 7:41









Chris VestChris Vest

7,46222842




7,46222842













  • See this existing question

    – Matthew Watson
    Sep 24 '08 at 8:01











  • This is actually quite a good question and I'm guessing that since you've accepted my answer a penny must have dropped. IMO this ad-hoc history tracking is one of the cardinal architectural sins of Insurance systems (an area that I work in). +1

    – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
    Sep 24 '08 at 9:31






  • 1





    I accepted your answer because the links you provided gave me the knowledge I needed to make an informed decision. Being given enough knowledge to answer the question yourself is a superior way of learning, than just being spoon-fed generic answers.

    – Chris Vest
    Sep 25 '08 at 16:25











  • Glad to be of help - I've found that doing a bit of web research and including the fan-out is a good sweet spot for stackoverflow answers. Many of my better (and more popular) answers have been done in this format, and it seems to be appreciated.

    – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
    Oct 8 '08 at 10:22



















  • See this existing question

    – Matthew Watson
    Sep 24 '08 at 8:01











  • This is actually quite a good question and I'm guessing that since you've accepted my answer a penny must have dropped. IMO this ad-hoc history tracking is one of the cardinal architectural sins of Insurance systems (an area that I work in). +1

    – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
    Sep 24 '08 at 9:31






  • 1





    I accepted your answer because the links you provided gave me the knowledge I needed to make an informed decision. Being given enough knowledge to answer the question yourself is a superior way of learning, than just being spoon-fed generic answers.

    – Chris Vest
    Sep 25 '08 at 16:25











  • Glad to be of help - I've found that doing a bit of web research and including the fan-out is a good sweet spot for stackoverflow answers. Many of my better (and more popular) answers have been done in this format, and it seems to be appreciated.

    – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
    Oct 8 '08 at 10:22

















See this existing question

– Matthew Watson
Sep 24 '08 at 8:01





See this existing question

– Matthew Watson
Sep 24 '08 at 8:01













This is actually quite a good question and I'm guessing that since you've accepted my answer a penny must have dropped. IMO this ad-hoc history tracking is one of the cardinal architectural sins of Insurance systems (an area that I work in). +1

– ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
Sep 24 '08 at 9:31





This is actually quite a good question and I'm guessing that since you've accepted my answer a penny must have dropped. IMO this ad-hoc history tracking is one of the cardinal architectural sins of Insurance systems (an area that I work in). +1

– ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
Sep 24 '08 at 9:31




1




1





I accepted your answer because the links you provided gave me the knowledge I needed to make an informed decision. Being given enough knowledge to answer the question yourself is a superior way of learning, than just being spoon-fed generic answers.

– Chris Vest
Sep 25 '08 at 16:25





I accepted your answer because the links you provided gave me the knowledge I needed to make an informed decision. Being given enough knowledge to answer the question yourself is a superior way of learning, than just being spoon-fed generic answers.

– Chris Vest
Sep 25 '08 at 16:25













Glad to be of help - I've found that doing a bit of web research and including the fan-out is a good sweet spot for stackoverflow answers. Many of my better (and more popular) answers have been done in this format, and it seems to be appreciated.

– ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
Oct 8 '08 at 10:22





Glad to be of help - I've found that doing a bit of web research and including the fan-out is a good sweet spot for stackoverflow answers. Many of my better (and more popular) answers have been done in this format, and it seems to be appreciated.

– ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
Oct 8 '08 at 10:22












9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes


















22














Think carefully about the requirements for revisions. Once your code-base has pervasive history tracking built into the operational system it will get very complex. Insurance underwriting systems are particularly bad for this, with schemas often running in excess of 1000 tables. Queries also tend to be quite complex and this can lead to performance issues.



If the historical state is really only required for reporting, consider implementing a 'current state' transactional system with a data warehouse structure hanging off the back for tracking history. Slowly Changing Dimensions are a much simpler structure for tracking historical state than trying to embed an ad-hoc history tracking mechanism directly into your operational system.



Also, Changed Data Capture is simpler for a 'current state' system with changes being done to the records in place - the primary keys of the records don't change so you don't have to match records holding different versions of the same entity together. An effective CDC mechanism will make an incremental warehouse load process fairly lightweight and possible to run quite frequently. If you don't need up-to-the minute tracking of historical state (almost, but not quite, and oxymoron) this can be an effective solution with a much simpler code base than a full history tracking mechanism built directly into the application.






share|improve this answer


























  • Just read the SCD page. Lots of food for thought. The alternative Type 6 looks like it is hitting close to home for me.

    – Chris Vest
    Sep 24 '08 at 8:58











  • Type 2/6 (a type 6 is just a type 2 with a self join to the most recent version) dimensions are probably what you want here. Look into using changed data capture if you want to update the warehouse frequently.

    – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
    Sep 24 '08 at 9:00











  • I'd like to say that although this was two years ago (almost to the day), this answer was very useful! Thank you!

    – corsiKa
    Sep 22 '10 at 19:59



















12














A technique I've used for this in that past has been to have a concept of "generations" in the database, each change increments the current generation number for the database - if you use subversion, think revisions.
Each record has 2 generation numbers associated with it (2 extra columns on the tables) - the generation that the record starts being valid for, and the generation the it stops being valid for. If the data is currently valid, the second number would be NULL or some other generic marker.



So to insert into the database:




  1. increment the generation number

  2. insert the data

  3. tag the lifetime of that data with valid from, and a valid to of NULL


If you're updating some data:




  1. mark all data that's about to be modified as valid to the current generation number

  2. increment the generation number

  3. insert the new data with the current generation number


deleting is just a matter of marking the data as terminating at the current generation.



To get a particular version of the data, find what generation you're after and look for data valid between those generation versions.



Example:



Create a person.



|Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
|Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |NULL|


Update tel no.



|Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
|Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |1 |
|Fred|1 april|555-43534|2 |NULL|


Delete fred:



|Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
|Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |1 |
|Fred|1 april|555-43534|2 |2 |





share|improve this answer


























  • +1. I was thinking along these lines but was unsure; it's very reassuring to see that someone has used this technique successfully.

    – Jason S
    May 6 '09 at 13:51



















2














An alternative to strict versioning is to split the data into 2 tables: current and history.



The current table has all the live data and has the benefits of all the performance that you build in.
Any changes first write the current data into the associated "history" table along with a date marker which says when it changed.






share|improve this answer































    2














    If you are using Hibernate JBoss Envers could be an option. You only have to annotate classes with @Audited to keep their history.






    share|improve this answer































      1














      You'll need a master record in a master table that contains the information common among all versions.



      Then each child table uses master record id + version no as part of the primary key.



      It can be done without the master table, but in my experience it will tend to make the SQL statements a lot messier.






      share|improve this answer































        0














        A simple fool-proof way, is to add a version column to your tables and store the Object's version and choose the appropriate application logic based on that version number.
        This way you also get backwards compatibility for little cost. Which is always good






        share|improve this answer































          0














          ZoDB + ZEO implements a revision based database with complete rollback to any point in time support. Go check it.



          Bad Part: It's Zope tied.






          share|improve this answer































            0














            Once an object is saved in a database, we can modify that object any number of times right, If we want to know how many no of times that an object is modified then we need to apply this versioning concept.



            When ever we use versioning then hibernate inserts version number as zero, when ever object is saved for the first time in the database. Later hibernate increments that version no by one automatically when ever a modification is done on that particular object.
            In order to use this versioning concept, we need the following two changes in our application



            Add one property of type int in our pojo class.

            In hibernate mapping file, add an element called version soon after id element





            share|improve this answer































              0














              I'm not sure if we have the same problem, but I required a large number of 'proposed' changes to the current data set (with chained proposals, ie, proposal on proposal).



              Think branching in source control but for database tables.



              We also wanted a historical log but this was the least important factor - the main issue was managing change proposals which could hang around for 6 months or longer as the business mulled over change approval and got ready for the actual change to be implemented.



              The idea is that users can load up a Change and start creating, editing, deleting the current state of data without actually applying those changes. Revert any changes they may have made, or cancel the entire change.



              The only way I have been able to achieve this is to have a set of common fields on my versioned tables:



              Root ID: Required - set once to the primary key when the first version of a record is created. This represents the primary key across all of time and is copied into each version of the record. You should consider the Root ID when naming relation columns (eg. PARENT_ROOT_ID instead of PARENT_ID). As the Root ID is also the primary key of the initial version, foreign keys can be created against the actual primary key - the actual desired row will be determined by the version filters defined below.



              Change ID: Required - every record is created, updated, deleted via a change



              Copied From ID: Nullable - null indicates newly created record, not-null indicates which record ID this row was cloned from when updated



              Effective From Date/Time: Nullable - null indicates proposed record, not-null indicates when the record became current. Unfortunately a unique index cannot be placed on Root ID/Effective From as there can be multiple null values for any Root ID. (Unless you want to restrict yourself to a single proposed change per record)



              Effective To Date/Time: Nullable - null indicates current/proposed, not-null indicates when it became historical. Not technically required but helps speed up queries finding the current data. This field could be corrupted by hand-edits but can be rebuilt from the Effective From Date/Time if this occurs.



              Delete Flag: Boolean - set to true when it is proposed that the record be deleted upon becoming current. When deletes are committed, their Effective To Date/Time is set to the same value as the Effective From Date/Time, filtering them out of the current data set.



              The query to get the current state of data according to a change would be;



              SELECT * FROM table WHERE (CHANGE_ID IN :ChangeId OR (EFFECTIVE_FROM <= :Now AND (EFFECTIVE_TO IS NULL OR EFFECTIVE_TO > :Now) AND ROOT_ID NOT IN (SELECT ROOT_ID FROM table WHERE CHANGE_ID IN :ChangeId)))


              (The filtering of change-on-change multiples is done outside of this query).



              The query to get the current state of data at a point in time would be;



              SELECT * FROM table WHERE EFFECTIVE_FROM <= :Now AND (EFFECTIVE_TO IS NULL OR EFFECTIVE_TO > :Now)


              Common indexes created on (ROOT_ID, EFFECTIVE_FROM), (EFFECTIVE_FROM, EFFECTIVE_TO) and (CHANGE_ID).



              If anyone knows a better solution I would love to hear about it.






              share|improve this answer

























                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
                });


                }
                });














                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f125877%2fversioning-database-persisted-objects-how-would-you%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                9 Answers
                9






                active

                oldest

                votes








                9 Answers
                9






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                22














                Think carefully about the requirements for revisions. Once your code-base has pervasive history tracking built into the operational system it will get very complex. Insurance underwriting systems are particularly bad for this, with schemas often running in excess of 1000 tables. Queries also tend to be quite complex and this can lead to performance issues.



                If the historical state is really only required for reporting, consider implementing a 'current state' transactional system with a data warehouse structure hanging off the back for tracking history. Slowly Changing Dimensions are a much simpler structure for tracking historical state than trying to embed an ad-hoc history tracking mechanism directly into your operational system.



                Also, Changed Data Capture is simpler for a 'current state' system with changes being done to the records in place - the primary keys of the records don't change so you don't have to match records holding different versions of the same entity together. An effective CDC mechanism will make an incremental warehouse load process fairly lightweight and possible to run quite frequently. If you don't need up-to-the minute tracking of historical state (almost, but not quite, and oxymoron) this can be an effective solution with a much simpler code base than a full history tracking mechanism built directly into the application.






                share|improve this answer


























                • Just read the SCD page. Lots of food for thought. The alternative Type 6 looks like it is hitting close to home for me.

                  – Chris Vest
                  Sep 24 '08 at 8:58











                • Type 2/6 (a type 6 is just a type 2 with a self join to the most recent version) dimensions are probably what you want here. Look into using changed data capture if you want to update the warehouse frequently.

                  – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
                  Sep 24 '08 at 9:00











                • I'd like to say that although this was two years ago (almost to the day), this answer was very useful! Thank you!

                  – corsiKa
                  Sep 22 '10 at 19:59
















                22














                Think carefully about the requirements for revisions. Once your code-base has pervasive history tracking built into the operational system it will get very complex. Insurance underwriting systems are particularly bad for this, with schemas often running in excess of 1000 tables. Queries also tend to be quite complex and this can lead to performance issues.



                If the historical state is really only required for reporting, consider implementing a 'current state' transactional system with a data warehouse structure hanging off the back for tracking history. Slowly Changing Dimensions are a much simpler structure for tracking historical state than trying to embed an ad-hoc history tracking mechanism directly into your operational system.



                Also, Changed Data Capture is simpler for a 'current state' system with changes being done to the records in place - the primary keys of the records don't change so you don't have to match records holding different versions of the same entity together. An effective CDC mechanism will make an incremental warehouse load process fairly lightweight and possible to run quite frequently. If you don't need up-to-the minute tracking of historical state (almost, but not quite, and oxymoron) this can be an effective solution with a much simpler code base than a full history tracking mechanism built directly into the application.






                share|improve this answer


























                • Just read the SCD page. Lots of food for thought. The alternative Type 6 looks like it is hitting close to home for me.

                  – Chris Vest
                  Sep 24 '08 at 8:58











                • Type 2/6 (a type 6 is just a type 2 with a self join to the most recent version) dimensions are probably what you want here. Look into using changed data capture if you want to update the warehouse frequently.

                  – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
                  Sep 24 '08 at 9:00











                • I'd like to say that although this was two years ago (almost to the day), this answer was very useful! Thank you!

                  – corsiKa
                  Sep 22 '10 at 19:59














                22












                22








                22







                Think carefully about the requirements for revisions. Once your code-base has pervasive history tracking built into the operational system it will get very complex. Insurance underwriting systems are particularly bad for this, with schemas often running in excess of 1000 tables. Queries also tend to be quite complex and this can lead to performance issues.



                If the historical state is really only required for reporting, consider implementing a 'current state' transactional system with a data warehouse structure hanging off the back for tracking history. Slowly Changing Dimensions are a much simpler structure for tracking historical state than trying to embed an ad-hoc history tracking mechanism directly into your operational system.



                Also, Changed Data Capture is simpler for a 'current state' system with changes being done to the records in place - the primary keys of the records don't change so you don't have to match records holding different versions of the same entity together. An effective CDC mechanism will make an incremental warehouse load process fairly lightweight and possible to run quite frequently. If you don't need up-to-the minute tracking of historical state (almost, but not quite, and oxymoron) this can be an effective solution with a much simpler code base than a full history tracking mechanism built directly into the application.






                share|improve this answer















                Think carefully about the requirements for revisions. Once your code-base has pervasive history tracking built into the operational system it will get very complex. Insurance underwriting systems are particularly bad for this, with schemas often running in excess of 1000 tables. Queries also tend to be quite complex and this can lead to performance issues.



                If the historical state is really only required for reporting, consider implementing a 'current state' transactional system with a data warehouse structure hanging off the back for tracking history. Slowly Changing Dimensions are a much simpler structure for tracking historical state than trying to embed an ad-hoc history tracking mechanism directly into your operational system.



                Also, Changed Data Capture is simpler for a 'current state' system with changes being done to the records in place - the primary keys of the records don't change so you don't have to match records holding different versions of the same entity together. An effective CDC mechanism will make an incremental warehouse load process fairly lightweight and possible to run quite frequently. If you don't need up-to-the minute tracking of historical state (almost, but not quite, and oxymoron) this can be an effective solution with a much simpler code base than a full history tracking mechanism built directly into the application.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Jan 21 '13 at 10:16

























                answered Sep 24 '08 at 8:29









                ConcernedOfTunbridgeWellsConcernedOfTunbridgeWells

                52.1k13124186




                52.1k13124186













                • Just read the SCD page. Lots of food for thought. The alternative Type 6 looks like it is hitting close to home for me.

                  – Chris Vest
                  Sep 24 '08 at 8:58











                • Type 2/6 (a type 6 is just a type 2 with a self join to the most recent version) dimensions are probably what you want here. Look into using changed data capture if you want to update the warehouse frequently.

                  – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
                  Sep 24 '08 at 9:00











                • I'd like to say that although this was two years ago (almost to the day), this answer was very useful! Thank you!

                  – corsiKa
                  Sep 22 '10 at 19:59



















                • Just read the SCD page. Lots of food for thought. The alternative Type 6 looks like it is hitting close to home for me.

                  – Chris Vest
                  Sep 24 '08 at 8:58











                • Type 2/6 (a type 6 is just a type 2 with a self join to the most recent version) dimensions are probably what you want here. Look into using changed data capture if you want to update the warehouse frequently.

                  – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
                  Sep 24 '08 at 9:00











                • I'd like to say that although this was two years ago (almost to the day), this answer was very useful! Thank you!

                  – corsiKa
                  Sep 22 '10 at 19:59

















                Just read the SCD page. Lots of food for thought. The alternative Type 6 looks like it is hitting close to home for me.

                – Chris Vest
                Sep 24 '08 at 8:58





                Just read the SCD page. Lots of food for thought. The alternative Type 6 looks like it is hitting close to home for me.

                – Chris Vest
                Sep 24 '08 at 8:58













                Type 2/6 (a type 6 is just a type 2 with a self join to the most recent version) dimensions are probably what you want here. Look into using changed data capture if you want to update the warehouse frequently.

                – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
                Sep 24 '08 at 9:00





                Type 2/6 (a type 6 is just a type 2 with a self join to the most recent version) dimensions are probably what you want here. Look into using changed data capture if you want to update the warehouse frequently.

                – ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
                Sep 24 '08 at 9:00













                I'd like to say that although this was two years ago (almost to the day), this answer was very useful! Thank you!

                – corsiKa
                Sep 22 '10 at 19:59





                I'd like to say that although this was two years ago (almost to the day), this answer was very useful! Thank you!

                – corsiKa
                Sep 22 '10 at 19:59













                12














                A technique I've used for this in that past has been to have a concept of "generations" in the database, each change increments the current generation number for the database - if you use subversion, think revisions.
                Each record has 2 generation numbers associated with it (2 extra columns on the tables) - the generation that the record starts being valid for, and the generation the it stops being valid for. If the data is currently valid, the second number would be NULL or some other generic marker.



                So to insert into the database:




                1. increment the generation number

                2. insert the data

                3. tag the lifetime of that data with valid from, and a valid to of NULL


                If you're updating some data:




                1. mark all data that's about to be modified as valid to the current generation number

                2. increment the generation number

                3. insert the new data with the current generation number


                deleting is just a matter of marking the data as terminating at the current generation.



                To get a particular version of the data, find what generation you're after and look for data valid between those generation versions.



                Example:



                Create a person.



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |NULL|


                Update tel no.



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |1 |
                |Fred|1 april|555-43534|2 |NULL|


                Delete fred:



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |1 |
                |Fred|1 april|555-43534|2 |2 |





                share|improve this answer


























                • +1. I was thinking along these lines but was unsure; it's very reassuring to see that someone has used this technique successfully.

                  – Jason S
                  May 6 '09 at 13:51
















                12














                A technique I've used for this in that past has been to have a concept of "generations" in the database, each change increments the current generation number for the database - if you use subversion, think revisions.
                Each record has 2 generation numbers associated with it (2 extra columns on the tables) - the generation that the record starts being valid for, and the generation the it stops being valid for. If the data is currently valid, the second number would be NULL or some other generic marker.



                So to insert into the database:




                1. increment the generation number

                2. insert the data

                3. tag the lifetime of that data with valid from, and a valid to of NULL


                If you're updating some data:




                1. mark all data that's about to be modified as valid to the current generation number

                2. increment the generation number

                3. insert the new data with the current generation number


                deleting is just a matter of marking the data as terminating at the current generation.



                To get a particular version of the data, find what generation you're after and look for data valid between those generation versions.



                Example:



                Create a person.



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |NULL|


                Update tel no.



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |1 |
                |Fred|1 april|555-43534|2 |NULL|


                Delete fred:



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |1 |
                |Fred|1 april|555-43534|2 |2 |





                share|improve this answer


























                • +1. I was thinking along these lines but was unsure; it's very reassuring to see that someone has used this technique successfully.

                  – Jason S
                  May 6 '09 at 13:51














                12












                12








                12







                A technique I've used for this in that past has been to have a concept of "generations" in the database, each change increments the current generation number for the database - if you use subversion, think revisions.
                Each record has 2 generation numbers associated with it (2 extra columns on the tables) - the generation that the record starts being valid for, and the generation the it stops being valid for. If the data is currently valid, the second number would be NULL or some other generic marker.



                So to insert into the database:




                1. increment the generation number

                2. insert the data

                3. tag the lifetime of that data with valid from, and a valid to of NULL


                If you're updating some data:




                1. mark all data that's about to be modified as valid to the current generation number

                2. increment the generation number

                3. insert the new data with the current generation number


                deleting is just a matter of marking the data as terminating at the current generation.



                To get a particular version of the data, find what generation you're after and look for data valid between those generation versions.



                Example:



                Create a person.



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |NULL|


                Update tel no.



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |1 |
                |Fred|1 april|555-43534|2 |NULL|


                Delete fred:



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |1 |
                |Fred|1 april|555-43534|2 |2 |





                share|improve this answer















                A technique I've used for this in that past has been to have a concept of "generations" in the database, each change increments the current generation number for the database - if you use subversion, think revisions.
                Each record has 2 generation numbers associated with it (2 extra columns on the tables) - the generation that the record starts being valid for, and the generation the it stops being valid for. If the data is currently valid, the second number would be NULL or some other generic marker.



                So to insert into the database:




                1. increment the generation number

                2. insert the data

                3. tag the lifetime of that data with valid from, and a valid to of NULL


                If you're updating some data:




                1. mark all data that's about to be modified as valid to the current generation number

                2. increment the generation number

                3. insert the new data with the current generation number


                deleting is just a matter of marking the data as terminating at the current generation.



                To get a particular version of the data, find what generation you're after and look for data valid between those generation versions.



                Example:



                Create a person.



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |NULL|


                Update tel no.



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |1 |
                |Fred|1 april|555-43534|2 |NULL|


                Delete fred:



                |Name|D.O.B  |Telephone|From|To  |
                |Fred|1 april|555-29384|1 |1 |
                |Fred|1 april|555-43534|2 |2 |






                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Sep 24 '08 at 7:56

























                answered Sep 24 '08 at 7:49









                Jim TJim T

                10.6k52240




                10.6k52240













                • +1. I was thinking along these lines but was unsure; it's very reassuring to see that someone has used this technique successfully.

                  – Jason S
                  May 6 '09 at 13:51



















                • +1. I was thinking along these lines but was unsure; it's very reassuring to see that someone has used this technique successfully.

                  – Jason S
                  May 6 '09 at 13:51

















                +1. I was thinking along these lines but was unsure; it's very reassuring to see that someone has used this technique successfully.

                – Jason S
                May 6 '09 at 13:51





                +1. I was thinking along these lines but was unsure; it's very reassuring to see that someone has used this technique successfully.

                – Jason S
                May 6 '09 at 13:51











                2














                An alternative to strict versioning is to split the data into 2 tables: current and history.



                The current table has all the live data and has the benefits of all the performance that you build in.
                Any changes first write the current data into the associated "history" table along with a date marker which says when it changed.






                share|improve this answer




























                  2














                  An alternative to strict versioning is to split the data into 2 tables: current and history.



                  The current table has all the live data and has the benefits of all the performance that you build in.
                  Any changes first write the current data into the associated "history" table along with a date marker which says when it changed.






                  share|improve this answer


























                    2












                    2








                    2







                    An alternative to strict versioning is to split the data into 2 tables: current and history.



                    The current table has all the live data and has the benefits of all the performance that you build in.
                    Any changes first write the current data into the associated "history" table along with a date marker which says when it changed.






                    share|improve this answer













                    An alternative to strict versioning is to split the data into 2 tables: current and history.



                    The current table has all the live data and has the benefits of all the performance that you build in.
                    Any changes first write the current data into the associated "history" table along with a date marker which says when it changed.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Sep 24 '08 at 7:59









                    Jim TJim T

                    10.6k52240




                    10.6k52240























                        2














                        If you are using Hibernate JBoss Envers could be an option. You only have to annotate classes with @Audited to keep their history.






                        share|improve this answer




























                          2














                          If you are using Hibernate JBoss Envers could be an option. You only have to annotate classes with @Audited to keep their history.






                          share|improve this answer


























                            2












                            2








                            2







                            If you are using Hibernate JBoss Envers could be an option. You only have to annotate classes with @Audited to keep their history.






                            share|improve this answer













                            If you are using Hibernate JBoss Envers could be an option. You only have to annotate classes with @Audited to keep their history.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Aug 12 '10 at 8:11









                            deamondeamon

                            37.2k86243369




                            37.2k86243369























                                1














                                You'll need a master record in a master table that contains the information common among all versions.



                                Then each child table uses master record id + version no as part of the primary key.



                                It can be done without the master table, but in my experience it will tend to make the SQL statements a lot messier.






                                share|improve this answer




























                                  1














                                  You'll need a master record in a master table that contains the information common among all versions.



                                  Then each child table uses master record id + version no as part of the primary key.



                                  It can be done without the master table, but in my experience it will tend to make the SQL statements a lot messier.






                                  share|improve this answer


























                                    1












                                    1








                                    1







                                    You'll need a master record in a master table that contains the information common among all versions.



                                    Then each child table uses master record id + version no as part of the primary key.



                                    It can be done without the master table, but in my experience it will tend to make the SQL statements a lot messier.






                                    share|improve this answer













                                    You'll need a master record in a master table that contains the information common among all versions.



                                    Then each child table uses master record id + version no as part of the primary key.



                                    It can be done without the master table, but in my experience it will tend to make the SQL statements a lot messier.







                                    share|improve this answer












                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer










                                    answered Sep 24 '08 at 7:57









                                    Roy TangRoy Tang

                                    3,08173465




                                    3,08173465























                                        0














                                        A simple fool-proof way, is to add a version column to your tables and store the Object's version and choose the appropriate application logic based on that version number.
                                        This way you also get backwards compatibility for little cost. Which is always good






                                        share|improve this answer




























                                          0














                                          A simple fool-proof way, is to add a version column to your tables and store the Object's version and choose the appropriate application logic based on that version number.
                                          This way you also get backwards compatibility for little cost. Which is always good






                                          share|improve this answer


























                                            0












                                            0








                                            0







                                            A simple fool-proof way, is to add a version column to your tables and store the Object's version and choose the appropriate application logic based on that version number.
                                            This way you also get backwards compatibility for little cost. Which is always good






                                            share|improve this answer













                                            A simple fool-proof way, is to add a version column to your tables and store the Object's version and choose the appropriate application logic based on that version number.
                                            This way you also get backwards compatibility for little cost. Which is always good







                                            share|improve this answer












                                            share|improve this answer



                                            share|improve this answer










                                            answered Sep 24 '08 at 8:31









                                            Robert GouldRobert Gould

                                            41.8k53168259




                                            41.8k53168259























                                                0














                                                ZoDB + ZEO implements a revision based database with complete rollback to any point in time support. Go check it.



                                                Bad Part: It's Zope tied.






                                                share|improve this answer




























                                                  0














                                                  ZoDB + ZEO implements a revision based database with complete rollback to any point in time support. Go check it.



                                                  Bad Part: It's Zope tied.






                                                  share|improve this answer


























                                                    0












                                                    0








                                                    0







                                                    ZoDB + ZEO implements a revision based database with complete rollback to any point in time support. Go check it.



                                                    Bad Part: It's Zope tied.






                                                    share|improve this answer













                                                    ZoDB + ZEO implements a revision based database with complete rollback to any point in time support. Go check it.



                                                    Bad Part: It's Zope tied.







                                                    share|improve this answer












                                                    share|improve this answer



                                                    share|improve this answer










                                                    answered Sep 24 '08 at 8:32









                                                    lmslms

                                                    52332




                                                    52332























                                                        0














                                                        Once an object is saved in a database, we can modify that object any number of times right, If we want to know how many no of times that an object is modified then we need to apply this versioning concept.



                                                        When ever we use versioning then hibernate inserts version number as zero, when ever object is saved for the first time in the database. Later hibernate increments that version no by one automatically when ever a modification is done on that particular object.
                                                        In order to use this versioning concept, we need the following two changes in our application



                                                        Add one property of type int in our pojo class.

                                                        In hibernate mapping file, add an element called version soon after id element





                                                        share|improve this answer




























                                                          0














                                                          Once an object is saved in a database, we can modify that object any number of times right, If we want to know how many no of times that an object is modified then we need to apply this versioning concept.



                                                          When ever we use versioning then hibernate inserts version number as zero, when ever object is saved for the first time in the database. Later hibernate increments that version no by one automatically when ever a modification is done on that particular object.
                                                          In order to use this versioning concept, we need the following two changes in our application



                                                          Add one property of type int in our pojo class.

                                                          In hibernate mapping file, add an element called version soon after id element





                                                          share|improve this answer


























                                                            0












                                                            0








                                                            0







                                                            Once an object is saved in a database, we can modify that object any number of times right, If we want to know how many no of times that an object is modified then we need to apply this versioning concept.



                                                            When ever we use versioning then hibernate inserts version number as zero, when ever object is saved for the first time in the database. Later hibernate increments that version no by one automatically when ever a modification is done on that particular object.
                                                            In order to use this versioning concept, we need the following two changes in our application



                                                            Add one property of type int in our pojo class.

                                                            In hibernate mapping file, add an element called version soon after id element





                                                            share|improve this answer













                                                            Once an object is saved in a database, we can modify that object any number of times right, If we want to know how many no of times that an object is modified then we need to apply this versioning concept.



                                                            When ever we use versioning then hibernate inserts version number as zero, when ever object is saved for the first time in the database. Later hibernate increments that version no by one automatically when ever a modification is done on that particular object.
                                                            In order to use this versioning concept, we need the following two changes in our application



                                                            Add one property of type int in our pojo class.

                                                            In hibernate mapping file, add an element called version soon after id element






                                                            share|improve this answer












                                                            share|improve this answer



                                                            share|improve this answer










                                                            answered Jun 3 '15 at 10:29









                                                            CredittoCreditto

                                                            1,0421817




                                                            1,0421817























                                                                0














                                                                I'm not sure if we have the same problem, but I required a large number of 'proposed' changes to the current data set (with chained proposals, ie, proposal on proposal).



                                                                Think branching in source control but for database tables.



                                                                We also wanted a historical log but this was the least important factor - the main issue was managing change proposals which could hang around for 6 months or longer as the business mulled over change approval and got ready for the actual change to be implemented.



                                                                The idea is that users can load up a Change and start creating, editing, deleting the current state of data without actually applying those changes. Revert any changes they may have made, or cancel the entire change.



                                                                The only way I have been able to achieve this is to have a set of common fields on my versioned tables:



                                                                Root ID: Required - set once to the primary key when the first version of a record is created. This represents the primary key across all of time and is copied into each version of the record. You should consider the Root ID when naming relation columns (eg. PARENT_ROOT_ID instead of PARENT_ID). As the Root ID is also the primary key of the initial version, foreign keys can be created against the actual primary key - the actual desired row will be determined by the version filters defined below.



                                                                Change ID: Required - every record is created, updated, deleted via a change



                                                                Copied From ID: Nullable - null indicates newly created record, not-null indicates which record ID this row was cloned from when updated



                                                                Effective From Date/Time: Nullable - null indicates proposed record, not-null indicates when the record became current. Unfortunately a unique index cannot be placed on Root ID/Effective From as there can be multiple null values for any Root ID. (Unless you want to restrict yourself to a single proposed change per record)



                                                                Effective To Date/Time: Nullable - null indicates current/proposed, not-null indicates when it became historical. Not technically required but helps speed up queries finding the current data. This field could be corrupted by hand-edits but can be rebuilt from the Effective From Date/Time if this occurs.



                                                                Delete Flag: Boolean - set to true when it is proposed that the record be deleted upon becoming current. When deletes are committed, their Effective To Date/Time is set to the same value as the Effective From Date/Time, filtering them out of the current data set.



                                                                The query to get the current state of data according to a change would be;



                                                                SELECT * FROM table WHERE (CHANGE_ID IN :ChangeId OR (EFFECTIVE_FROM <= :Now AND (EFFECTIVE_TO IS NULL OR EFFECTIVE_TO > :Now) AND ROOT_ID NOT IN (SELECT ROOT_ID FROM table WHERE CHANGE_ID IN :ChangeId)))


                                                                (The filtering of change-on-change multiples is done outside of this query).



                                                                The query to get the current state of data at a point in time would be;



                                                                SELECT * FROM table WHERE EFFECTIVE_FROM <= :Now AND (EFFECTIVE_TO IS NULL OR EFFECTIVE_TO > :Now)


                                                                Common indexes created on (ROOT_ID, EFFECTIVE_FROM), (EFFECTIVE_FROM, EFFECTIVE_TO) and (CHANGE_ID).



                                                                If anyone knows a better solution I would love to hear about it.






                                                                share|improve this answer






























                                                                  0














                                                                  I'm not sure if we have the same problem, but I required a large number of 'proposed' changes to the current data set (with chained proposals, ie, proposal on proposal).



                                                                  Think branching in source control but for database tables.



                                                                  We also wanted a historical log but this was the least important factor - the main issue was managing change proposals which could hang around for 6 months or longer as the business mulled over change approval and got ready for the actual change to be implemented.



                                                                  The idea is that users can load up a Change and start creating, editing, deleting the current state of data without actually applying those changes. Revert any changes they may have made, or cancel the entire change.



                                                                  The only way I have been able to achieve this is to have a set of common fields on my versioned tables:



                                                                  Root ID: Required - set once to the primary key when the first version of a record is created. This represents the primary key across all of time and is copied into each version of the record. You should consider the Root ID when naming relation columns (eg. PARENT_ROOT_ID instead of PARENT_ID). As the Root ID is also the primary key of the initial version, foreign keys can be created against the actual primary key - the actual desired row will be determined by the version filters defined below.



                                                                  Change ID: Required - every record is created, updated, deleted via a change



                                                                  Copied From ID: Nullable - null indicates newly created record, not-null indicates which record ID this row was cloned from when updated



                                                                  Effective From Date/Time: Nullable - null indicates proposed record, not-null indicates when the record became current. Unfortunately a unique index cannot be placed on Root ID/Effective From as there can be multiple null values for any Root ID. (Unless you want to restrict yourself to a single proposed change per record)



                                                                  Effective To Date/Time: Nullable - null indicates current/proposed, not-null indicates when it became historical. Not technically required but helps speed up queries finding the current data. This field could be corrupted by hand-edits but can be rebuilt from the Effective From Date/Time if this occurs.



                                                                  Delete Flag: Boolean - set to true when it is proposed that the record be deleted upon becoming current. When deletes are committed, their Effective To Date/Time is set to the same value as the Effective From Date/Time, filtering them out of the current data set.



                                                                  The query to get the current state of data according to a change would be;



                                                                  SELECT * FROM table WHERE (CHANGE_ID IN :ChangeId OR (EFFECTIVE_FROM <= :Now AND (EFFECTIVE_TO IS NULL OR EFFECTIVE_TO > :Now) AND ROOT_ID NOT IN (SELECT ROOT_ID FROM table WHERE CHANGE_ID IN :ChangeId)))


                                                                  (The filtering of change-on-change multiples is done outside of this query).



                                                                  The query to get the current state of data at a point in time would be;



                                                                  SELECT * FROM table WHERE EFFECTIVE_FROM <= :Now AND (EFFECTIVE_TO IS NULL OR EFFECTIVE_TO > :Now)


                                                                  Common indexes created on (ROOT_ID, EFFECTIVE_FROM), (EFFECTIVE_FROM, EFFECTIVE_TO) and (CHANGE_ID).



                                                                  If anyone knows a better solution I would love to hear about it.






                                                                  share|improve this answer




























                                                                    0












                                                                    0








                                                                    0







                                                                    I'm not sure if we have the same problem, but I required a large number of 'proposed' changes to the current data set (with chained proposals, ie, proposal on proposal).



                                                                    Think branching in source control but for database tables.



                                                                    We also wanted a historical log but this was the least important factor - the main issue was managing change proposals which could hang around for 6 months or longer as the business mulled over change approval and got ready for the actual change to be implemented.



                                                                    The idea is that users can load up a Change and start creating, editing, deleting the current state of data without actually applying those changes. Revert any changes they may have made, or cancel the entire change.



                                                                    The only way I have been able to achieve this is to have a set of common fields on my versioned tables:



                                                                    Root ID: Required - set once to the primary key when the first version of a record is created. This represents the primary key across all of time and is copied into each version of the record. You should consider the Root ID when naming relation columns (eg. PARENT_ROOT_ID instead of PARENT_ID). As the Root ID is also the primary key of the initial version, foreign keys can be created against the actual primary key - the actual desired row will be determined by the version filters defined below.



                                                                    Change ID: Required - every record is created, updated, deleted via a change



                                                                    Copied From ID: Nullable - null indicates newly created record, not-null indicates which record ID this row was cloned from when updated



                                                                    Effective From Date/Time: Nullable - null indicates proposed record, not-null indicates when the record became current. Unfortunately a unique index cannot be placed on Root ID/Effective From as there can be multiple null values for any Root ID. (Unless you want to restrict yourself to a single proposed change per record)



                                                                    Effective To Date/Time: Nullable - null indicates current/proposed, not-null indicates when it became historical. Not technically required but helps speed up queries finding the current data. This field could be corrupted by hand-edits but can be rebuilt from the Effective From Date/Time if this occurs.



                                                                    Delete Flag: Boolean - set to true when it is proposed that the record be deleted upon becoming current. When deletes are committed, their Effective To Date/Time is set to the same value as the Effective From Date/Time, filtering them out of the current data set.



                                                                    The query to get the current state of data according to a change would be;



                                                                    SELECT * FROM table WHERE (CHANGE_ID IN :ChangeId OR (EFFECTIVE_FROM <= :Now AND (EFFECTIVE_TO IS NULL OR EFFECTIVE_TO > :Now) AND ROOT_ID NOT IN (SELECT ROOT_ID FROM table WHERE CHANGE_ID IN :ChangeId)))


                                                                    (The filtering of change-on-change multiples is done outside of this query).



                                                                    The query to get the current state of data at a point in time would be;



                                                                    SELECT * FROM table WHERE EFFECTIVE_FROM <= :Now AND (EFFECTIVE_TO IS NULL OR EFFECTIVE_TO > :Now)


                                                                    Common indexes created on (ROOT_ID, EFFECTIVE_FROM), (EFFECTIVE_FROM, EFFECTIVE_TO) and (CHANGE_ID).



                                                                    If anyone knows a better solution I would love to hear about it.






                                                                    share|improve this answer















                                                                    I'm not sure if we have the same problem, but I required a large number of 'proposed' changes to the current data set (with chained proposals, ie, proposal on proposal).



                                                                    Think branching in source control but for database tables.



                                                                    We also wanted a historical log but this was the least important factor - the main issue was managing change proposals which could hang around for 6 months or longer as the business mulled over change approval and got ready for the actual change to be implemented.



                                                                    The idea is that users can load up a Change and start creating, editing, deleting the current state of data without actually applying those changes. Revert any changes they may have made, or cancel the entire change.



                                                                    The only way I have been able to achieve this is to have a set of common fields on my versioned tables:



                                                                    Root ID: Required - set once to the primary key when the first version of a record is created. This represents the primary key across all of time and is copied into each version of the record. You should consider the Root ID when naming relation columns (eg. PARENT_ROOT_ID instead of PARENT_ID). As the Root ID is also the primary key of the initial version, foreign keys can be created against the actual primary key - the actual desired row will be determined by the version filters defined below.



                                                                    Change ID: Required - every record is created, updated, deleted via a change



                                                                    Copied From ID: Nullable - null indicates newly created record, not-null indicates which record ID this row was cloned from when updated



                                                                    Effective From Date/Time: Nullable - null indicates proposed record, not-null indicates when the record became current. Unfortunately a unique index cannot be placed on Root ID/Effective From as there can be multiple null values for any Root ID. (Unless you want to restrict yourself to a single proposed change per record)



                                                                    Effective To Date/Time: Nullable - null indicates current/proposed, not-null indicates when it became historical. Not technically required but helps speed up queries finding the current data. This field could be corrupted by hand-edits but can be rebuilt from the Effective From Date/Time if this occurs.



                                                                    Delete Flag: Boolean - set to true when it is proposed that the record be deleted upon becoming current. When deletes are committed, their Effective To Date/Time is set to the same value as the Effective From Date/Time, filtering them out of the current data set.



                                                                    The query to get the current state of data according to a change would be;



                                                                    SELECT * FROM table WHERE (CHANGE_ID IN :ChangeId OR (EFFECTIVE_FROM <= :Now AND (EFFECTIVE_TO IS NULL OR EFFECTIVE_TO > :Now) AND ROOT_ID NOT IN (SELECT ROOT_ID FROM table WHERE CHANGE_ID IN :ChangeId)))


                                                                    (The filtering of change-on-change multiples is done outside of this query).



                                                                    The query to get the current state of data at a point in time would be;



                                                                    SELECT * FROM table WHERE EFFECTIVE_FROM <= :Now AND (EFFECTIVE_TO IS NULL OR EFFECTIVE_TO > :Now)


                                                                    Common indexes created on (ROOT_ID, EFFECTIVE_FROM), (EFFECTIVE_FROM, EFFECTIVE_TO) and (CHANGE_ID).



                                                                    If anyone knows a better solution I would love to hear about it.







                                                                    share|improve this answer














                                                                    share|improve this answer



                                                                    share|improve this answer








                                                                    edited Nov 22 '18 at 1:24

























                                                                    answered Nov 22 '18 at 0:07









                                                                    BenBen

                                                                    13




                                                                    13






























                                                                        draft saved

                                                                        draft discarded




















































                                                                        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.




                                                                        draft saved


                                                                        draft discarded














                                                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                                                        function () {
                                                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f125877%2fversioning-database-persisted-objects-how-would-you%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                                                        }
                                                                        );

                                                                        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







                                                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                                                        "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

                                                                        Alcedinidae

                                                                        RAC Tourist Trophy