101 lines
4.4 KiB
Markdown
101 lines
4.4 KiB
Markdown
<think>The user wants me to discuss whether the current database design is suitable based on the Requirements.md document and the database schema reports. They specifically mentioned that they believe that in the ClickHouse database, only the events table is necessary and the other tables could be removed.
|
||
|
||
Let me analyze both the requirements and the database schema:
|
||
|
||
1. From Requirements.md:
|
||
- We need to track KOL (Key Opinion Leader) performance metrics
|
||
- Multiple visualization components are required including overview statistics, conversion funnels, post performance, etc.
|
||
- Data requirements include metrics like follower growth, new likes, new follows, interaction rates, etc.
|
||
- Need to analyze sentiment, popular content, platforms distribution, etc.
|
||
|
||
2. From the database reports:
|
||
- PostgreSQL database has tables for projects, influencers, project_influencers, posts, comments, etc.
|
||
- ClickHouse database has tables: events, follower_events, like_events, view_events
|
||
|
||
Let me analyze if we could simplify the ClickHouse schema by keeping only the events table:
|
||
|
||
The current ClickHouse design has:
|
||
- events (general events table)
|
||
- follower_events (specific for follow/unfollow actions)
|
||
- like_events (specific for like/unlike actions)
|
||
- view_events (specific for content views)
|
||
|
||
The user's suggestion is to potentially consolidate all these into just the general events table. Let me evaluate if this makes sense based on the requirements and typical ClickHouse usage patterns.</think># 数据库设计评估
|
||
|
||
根据您提供的需求文档和数据库结构报告，我来分析当前数据库设计是否合适，特别是关于ClickHouse中的表设计。
|
||
|
||
## 现有数据库结构
|
||
|
||
### PostgreSQL (关系型数据)
|
||
- `projects`: 项目基本信息
|
||
- `influencers`: KOL基本信息和统计数据
|
||
- `project_influencers`: 项目和KOL的关联关系
|
||
- `posts`: KOL发布的内容信息
|
||
- `comments`, `project_comments`, `user_profiles`: 其他辅助数据
|
||
|
||
### ClickHouse (分析型数据)
|
||
- `events`: 通用事件表
|
||
- `follower_events`: 关注/取消关注事件
|
||
- `like_events`: 点赞/取消点赞事件
|
||
- `view_events`: 内容浏览事件
|
||
|
||
## 关于您的建议
|
||
|
||
您认为ClickHouse中除了events表，其他表可以不需要。这个建议有合理性，分析如下：
|
||
|
||
### 支持合并到一张表的理由
|
||
|
||
1. **简化架构**: 单一事件表更容易维护和理解。
|
||
|
||
2. **查询灵活性**: 通过在`events`表中添加适当的`event_type`和必要字段，可以覆盖所有现有特定表的功能。
|
||
|
||
3. **聚合效率**: ClickHouse在处理大表聚合时非常高效，不会因为表的合并而显著影响性能。
|
||
|
||
4. **满足现有需求**: 从需求文档看，主要需要的是事件计数和趋势分析，这些可以通过单一事件表实现。
|
||
|
||
### 修改建议
|
||
|
||
如果合并为单一`events`表，可以进行如下设计：
|
||
|
||
```sql
|
||
CREATE TABLE events (
|
||
event_id UUID DEFAULT generateUUIDv4(),
|
||
user_id String,
|
||
content_id String, -- 可以是post_id或其他内容ID
|
||
related_id String, -- 例如关注事件中的followed_id
|
||
event_type Enum8(
|
||
'view' = 1,
|
||
'like' = 2,
|
||
'unlike' = 3,
|
||
'follow' = 4,
|
||
'unfollow' = 5,
|
||
'comment' = 6,
|
||
'share' = 7
|
||
-- 可扩展更多类型
|
||
),
|
||
value Float64, -- 通用数值字段
|
||
ip String, -- 适用于某些事件类型
|
||
user_agent String, -- 适用于某些事件类型
|
||
timestamp DateTime DEFAULT now()
|
||
)
|
||
ENGINE = MergeTree()
|
||
PARTITION BY toYYYYMM(timestamp)
|
||
ORDER BY (event_type, timestamp);
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### 潜在考虑事项
|
||
|
||
1. **查询性能**: 对于特定类型的查询，专用表可能性能更佳，但这取决于您的查询模式。
|
||
|
||
2. **存储效率**: 通用表会有一些字段对特定事件类型是不必要的，可能导致存储空间浪费，但在大多数情况下影响不大。
|
||
|
||
3. **数据治理**: 单一事件表可能使数据结构不够清晰，需要良好的文档和模式约束。
|
||
|
||
## 结论
|
||
|
||
基于您的需求文档和数据量级，我认为**合并成单一的events表是合理的**。这样的设计更简洁，满足需求的同时，降低了维护复杂度。
|
||
|
||
如果您的分析需求进一步复杂化，或者查询性能出现瓶颈，可以考虑使用ClickHouse的物化视图功能，在保持单一事件表的同时，为特定查询场景创建优化的视图。
|
||
|
||
您认为这个分析是否符合您的期望？是否需要进一步讨论特定的分析场景？
|