https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/re-modeling-related-data-in-a-utility-network/m-p/1676294#M6299 <P>This thread was created from a comment on this article:&nbsp;<A href="https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-blog/modeling-related-data-in-a-utility-network/ba-p/1675555" target="_blank">https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-blog/modeling-related-data-in-a-utility-network/ba-p/1675555</A></P><P>I have clarified the article to explicitly state that the related records are non-network features/rows.</P><P>I haven't seen any examples of moving all the business attributes into related tables, but maybe someone in the community can speak to what their experience has been with it?</P><P>What I more commonly see is customers who had heavily a heavily de-normalized data model restructure their data model to move fields for things like customer data, inspection data, etc into related tables. Wide tables and many relationship classes both carry their own performance costs, so be considerate with how you store and manage your data. This is a principle that doesn't apply to GIS, but any application that is built on a relational database.</P> Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:17:31 GMT RobertKrisher 2026-01-07T13:17:31Z https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/re-modeling-related-data-in-a-utility-network/m-p/1676236#M6298 <P>Thanks for the informative article&nbsp;<a href="https://community.esri.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/138089">@RobertKrisher</a>&nbsp;</P><P>Can you please elaborate more on Related Records option. Is it the standard Relationship Class between spatial object in the UNM such as ElectricDevice and non-spatial table not part of the UNM topology e.g. TransformerUnitAttributes, either zero to one or zero to many?</P><P>I always contemplated to keep only mandatory topological and network attributes in the base UNM classes such device, line, junction and assembly and define additional business attributes in the related table(s), separate one for each ASSETGROUP. However, a thread long ago suggested it has performance penalty.&nbsp;<A href="https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/best-practices-for-attribute-data-modeling-in-un/td-p/599499" target="_blank">Solved: Best Practices for Attribute Data Modeling in UN - Esri Community</A></P><P>Has any customer modeled business attributes using related tables?</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>&nbsp;</P> Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:52:45 GMT https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/re-modeling-related-data-in-a-utility-network/m-p/1676236#M6298 VishApte_NGIS 2026-01-07T00:52:45Z https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/re-modeling-related-data-in-a-utility-network/m-p/1676294#M6299 <P>This thread was created from a comment on this article:&nbsp;<A href="https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-blog/modeling-related-data-in-a-utility-network/ba-p/1675555" target="_blank">https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-blog/modeling-related-data-in-a-utility-network/ba-p/1675555</A></P><P>I have clarified the article to explicitly state that the related records are non-network features/rows.</P><P>I haven't seen any examples of moving all the business attributes into related tables, but maybe someone in the community can speak to what their experience has been with it?</P><P>What I more commonly see is customers who had heavily a heavily de-normalized data model restructure their data model to move fields for things like customer data, inspection data, etc into related tables. Wide tables and many relationship classes both carry their own performance costs, so be considerate with how you store and manage your data. This is a principle that doesn't apply to GIS, but any application that is built on a relational database.</P> Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:17:31 GMT https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/re-modeling-related-data-in-a-utility-network/m-p/1676294#M6299 RobertKrisher 2026-01-07T13:17:31Z