Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I started to learn mySQL and a thought came to mind, I always see memes about databases and dropping tables, and how much of a problem such an even event can cause. My question is why would someone working in a software development environment ever decide to drop a table or even an entire scheme for that matter?
There can be various reasons, the main ones that come to mind:
As part of a roll back, you migrated something to the production environment which had bugs or shouldn't have been deployed yet. In order to get back to the previous state you'd need to drop the new table.
As part of clean up: legacy parts of the database which you no longer need, old table partitions with already archived data, user schemas of people no longer working for the company.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I merged two databases for analyses purposes. One of these databases is out of production, so the data is not changing. The other db is live and continuously growing.
What's the best practice in terms of data management/storage? Do I have to delete all rows and reload + union data from both databases or is there a better way to manage this?
Thanks in advance
Sam
If you know the SSIS then make a package which will check keys and based on that it will inserted only unique rows.
You can easily apply lookup via ssis in source and destination.
Let me know if you need any help
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am about to develop a small cms\forum. Multiple customers are going to have there own access where the customers can communicate white them.
What is best practices- to make separate SQL db to each customer's cms data or one big to contain all the customers data?
As I cannot comment, so I can only type here.
It is strange that you would like to have separate database for each customer and it seems impossible to manage multiple db for just one purpose or function. For example, how could you identify which db belong to which customer? Also, do you expect to have many resource to allocate to each customer? a db simply waste if the customer is not active.
So, I suggest you to use one db to manage all the customers data which is normal solution.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question. I've more or less just started learning how to use SQL.
I'm making a website, the website stores main accounts, each having many sub-accounts associated with them. Each sub-account has a few thousand records in various tables associated with it.
My question is to do with the conventional usage of databases. Is it better to use a database per main account with everything associated with it stored in the same place, store everything in one database, or an amalgamation of both?
Some insight would be much appreciated.
Will you need to access more than one of these databases at the same time? If so put them all in one. You will not like the amount of effort and cost 'joining' them back together to do a query. On top of that, every database you have needs to be managed, and should you need to transfer data between them that can get painful as well.
Segregating data by database is a last resort.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
A version control system compares the scripted definition of a table to the checked in state. So I guess many cvs will see column reordering of a table as a change.
Since tsql does not support to add a new column in the middle of a table and because in a relational DB the ordering should not matter, what are good practices for version control of table definitions if the column-order could change.
Sometimes you could need to redo a drop column in the middle of a table.
You should be storing scripts to setup your database in source control, not trying to have something reverse-engineer those scripts from the state of the database. Column-order then becomes a non-issue.
Specifically, I've seen two schemes that work well. In the first, each database schema update script is given a sequential number, and the database tracks which sequence number is the last applied. In the second, each database schema update script is given a UUID, and the database tracks all UUIDs that have been applied.
I would checkout the book Refactoring Databases for more details and examples of how to manage database changes.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm wondering what are recent advances in relational database theory and related domains? I'm interested in new approaches, query languages (alternatives to SQL and/or extensions to it), products (proprietary and open source, though I'm much more interested in open source) and research projects developed in last years.
I am not versed in the subject but there was a very nice project based on XML structures over RDB that caught my eye a few years back and now seems to work perfectly.
Have a look at http://exist.sourceforge.net/ to see a nice approach to RDB used to build a more flexible storage system with XQuery as the query language. You should like it, it's open source.