We're building an application where eCommerce owners can connect their store from different platforms (e.g. Shopify, Magento, Woocommerce). We do this in order to import data from these various platforms.
So we have a Stores table. In there we have data that are common to all platforms and some data that are specific to the platforms.
I'm not sure what to do here. Should we create specific tables that contain platform-specific information or we create columns to store certain information but that will be empty for the stores from the other platforms?
What would be the pros and cons? Knowing that we would then need to create tables for all new platforms that we integrate with if we go for option 2.
You haven't said which specific RDBMS you're using, but with PostgreSQL you have the option of foreign data wrappers. These let you federate data from other sources and APIs into your application database and read and write foreign tables just like you do the internal tables (assuming the external APIs allow you to modify data). With this approach, you just need to make sure that your stores are properly associated with their respective entries in the foreign tables. Developing FDWs is relatively easy with Multicorn.
If that's not an option: using columns is efficient to query since the information is right there in your store record. However, it could get unwieldy depending on how much of it there is, and if you could have a tenant with multiple presences on one of those external platforms -- weirder things have happened -- you're in for some trouble. And the relational form makes adding and changing support for the external platforms easier since you don't have to lock the entire tenants table to add or remove columns.
The simpler approach may be all you need to start out with, but it'd probably be smart to plan for tables in the end.
Related
I’m building two applications that need to share some similar data but each will also have unique data. Should I build a separate database for each app or let each app access the same database.
I need the shared data to update automatically on one app if it is changed in another. I’m also using postgresql with react and express with the intent of having both apps be progressive web apps and eventually react native apps.
In general, I would think of this as:
Databases are the unit of backup and recovery.
Databases can contain multiple schemas ("schemata" ?) which are the unit for managing users and objects.
Based on your question:
I need the shared data to update automatically on one app if it is changed in another.
It sounds like you want one database and separate schemas for each application.
It sounds as if you will need to join the database from both applications in a single SQL query. In that case, use one database and multiple schemas to separate the data.
You could have one schema common that contains the data which is shared between all applications and then one schema per application.
Both has pros and cons. But i think keeping them separate will be better. Pro for one can be con for other.
Pros -
separate DB makes maintenance better,faster and easy.
performance wise separate DB is better.
Migrations of code will be easy.
Cons -
Auto synchup can be tricky if tables etc. are different.
If one process need to use tables from both DB, it will be an issue.
For a web application (with some real private data) we want to use privacy enhancing technology to prevent big risks when someone gets permission to our database.
The application is build with different layers, and we use (as said in the topic title) Fluent NHibernate to connect to our database and we've created our own wrapper class to create query's.
Security is a big issue for the kind of application we're building. I'll try to explain the setting by a simple example:
Our customers got some clients in their application (each installation of the application uses its own database), for which some sensitive data is added, there is a client table, and a person table, that are linked.
The base table, which links to the other tables (there will be hundreds of them soon), probably containing sensitive data, is the client table
At this moment, the client has a cleint_id, and a table_id in the database, our customer only knows the client_id, the system links the data by the table_id, which is unknown to the user.
What we want to ensure:
A possible hacker who would have gained access to our database, should not be able to see the link between the customer and the other tables by just opening the database. So actually there should be some kind of "hidden link" between the customer and other tables. The personal data and all sensitive other tables should not be obviously linked together.
Because of the data sensitivity we're looking for a more robust solution then "statically hash the table_id and use this in other tables", because when one of the persons is linked to the corresponding client, not all other clients data is compromised too.
Ultimately, the customer table cannot be linked to the other tables at all, just by working inside the database, the application-code is needed to link the tables.
To accomplish this we've been looking into different methods, but because of the multiple linked tables to this client, and further development (thus probably even more tables) we're looking for a centralised solution. That's why we concluded this should be handled in the database connector. Searching on the internet and here on Stack Overflow, did not point us in the right direction, perhaps we couldn't find this because of wrong search terms (PET, Privacy enhancing technology, combined with NHibernate did not give us any directions.
How can we accomplish our goals in this specific situation, or where to search to help us fix this.
We have a similar requirement for our application and what we ended up with using database schema's.
We have one database and each customer has a separate schema, where all the data for that customer is stored. It is possible to link from the schema to the rest of the database, but not to different schema's.
Security can be set for each schema separately so you can make the life of a hacker harder.
That being said I can also imagine a solution where you let NHibernate encrypt every peace of data it will send to the database and decrypt everything it gets back. The data will be store savely, but it will be very difficult to query over data.
So there is probably not a single answer to this question, and you have to decide what is better: Not being able to query, or just making it more difficult for a hacker to get to the data.
I have a scenario, my application is a SAAS based app catering to multiple clients. Data Integrity to clients is very essential.
Is it better to keep my Tables
Client specific
OR
Relational Tables
For Ex: I have a mapping table with fields MapField1,MapField2. I need this kind of data for each client.
Should I have tables like MappingData_
or a Single Table with mapping to the ClientId
MappingData with Fields MapField1,MapField2,ClientId
I would have a separate database for each customer. (Multiple databases in a single SQL Server instance.)
This would allow you to design it once, with a single schema.
No dynamically named tables compromising test & development
Upgrades and maintenance can be designed and tested in one DB, then rolled out to all
A single customer's data can be backed-up, restored or dropped exceedingly simply
Bugs discovered/exploited in one DB won't comprise the integrity of other DBs
Data access (read and write) can be managed using SQL Logins (No re-inventing the wheel)
If there is a need for globally shared data, that would go in another database, with it's own set of permissions for the different SQL Logins.
The use of a single database, with all users in it is my next best choice. You still have a single schema. But you don't get to partition the customers' data, you need to manage access rights and permissions yourself, and a whole host of other additional design and testing work.
I would never go near dynamically creating new tables for additional customers. A new table name means all your queries need to be updated with the new table name, and a whole host of other maintenance head-aches.
I'm pretty much of the opinion that if you want to create tables dynamically during the Business As Usual use of an application/service, you've designed it badly.
SO has a tag for the thing you're describing: "multi-tenant".
Visualize the architecture for supporting a multi-tenant database application as a spectrum. At one extreme of the spectrum is "shared nothing", which means each tenant has its own database. At the other extreme of the spectrum is "shared everything", which means tenants share tables, and each row in each table belongs to one tenant. (Each row contains a tenant identifier.)
Terminology seems to overlap, so read carefully. What one writer means by shared schema might be identical to what another writer means by shared everything.
This SO answer, also written by me, describes the differences and the tradeoffs in terms of cost, data isolation and protection, maintenance, and disaster recovery. It also links to a fairly good introductory article.
I'm planing a webproject, containing 4 websites build in MVC3. As a databaseserver I'm going to use the ms sql server.
Each of this websites will have something arround 40 tables. But some of the tables are shared between the websites:
Contact, Cities, Postalcodes, Countries...
How to handle this? should I put all the tables of each database into a common database (so that the database of website 1,2,3 and website 4 are in one databse together). Or should I create one database containing shared datase?
But then I think I'm getting problems with the data consitency, because I think there is no way to point from one database to an other (linking for example the citytable in database one to the buldingtable in databse 2).
Any ideas?
Thanks a lot!
What I like about splitting it out into separate databases is that if each web site has its own database, and one of those web sites gets extremely popular, it is very easy to just move their database to a different, more powerful database server and not much has to change except (a) you need to reference the central "control" data remotely (or replicate/mirror/etc), and (b) you point that web site at a different database server. Another benefit is that if two web sites have the same types of tables (e.g. Patients), you don't have to have tables like Patients_WebSite1, Patients_WebSite2, with different stored procedures that are identical except for table names (or ugly dynamic SQL procedures that paste the table name in). Separated out you can have the exact same schema and the exact same codebase without having to combine everyone's data into a single table.
If you mix the data within a single database, data consistency is easier, and the whole setup is slightly simpler, but splitting it out when you grow is a lot tougher. If you split it out into different databases, no you won't be able to enforce referential integrity using standard DRI (foreign keys). You can accomplish this in other ways if it is important (triggers, validation before insert/update, etc).
We have a SQL server that has a database for each client, and we have hundreds of clients. So imagine the following: database001, database002, database003, ..., database999. We want to combine all of these databases into one database.
Our thoughts are to add a siteId column, 001, 002, 003, ..., 999.
We are exploring options to make this transition as smoothly as possible. And we would LOVE to hear any ideas you have. It's proving to be a VERY challenging problem.
I've heard of a technique that would create a view that would match and then filter.
Any ideas guys?
Create a client database id for each of the client databases. You will use this id to keep the data logically separated. This is the "site id" concept, but you can use a derived key (identity field) instead of manually creating these numbers. Create a table that has database name and id, with any other metadata you need.
The next step would be to create an SSIS package that gets the ID for the database in question and adds it to the tables that have to have their data separated out logically. You then can run that same package over each database with the lookup for ID for the database in question.
After you have a unique id for the data that is unique, and have imported the data, you will have to alter your apps to fit the new schema (actually before, or you are pretty much screwed).
If you want to do this in steps, you can create views or functions in the different "databases" so the old client can still hit the client's data, even though it has been moved. This step may not be necessary if you deploy with some downtime.
The method I propose is fairly flexible and can be applied to one client at a time, depending on your client application deployment methodology.
Why do you want to do that?
You can read about Multi-Tenant Data Architecture and also listen to SO #19 (around 40-50 min) about this design.
The "site-id" solution is what's done.
Another possibility that may not work out as well (but is still appealing) is multiple schemas within a single database. You can pull common tables into a "common" schema, and leave the customer-specific stuff in customer-specific schema. In some database products, however, the each schema is -- effectively -- a separate database. In other products (Oracle, DB2, for example) you can easily write queries that work in multiple schemas.
Also note that -- as an optimization -- you may not need to add siteId column to EVERY table.
Sometimes you have a "contains" relationship. It's a master-detail FK, often defined with a cascade delete so that detail cannot exist without the parent. In this case, the children don't need siteId because they don't have an independent existence.
Your first step will be to determine if these databases even have the same structure. Even if you think they do, you need to compare them to make sure they do. Chances are there will be some that are customized or missed an upgrade cycle or two.
Now depending on the number of clients and the number of records per client, your tables may get huge. Are you sure this will not create a performance problem? At any rate you may need to take a fresh look at indexing. You may need a much more powerful set of servers and may also need to partion by client anyway for performance.
Next, yes each table will need a site id of some sort. Further, depending on your design, you may have primary keys that are now no longer unique. You may need to redefine all primary keys to include the siteid. Always index this field when you add it.
Now all your queries, stored procs, views, udfs will need to be rewritten to ensure that the siteid is part of them. PAy particular attention to any dynamic SQL. Otherwise you could be showing client A's information to client B. Clients don't tend to like that. We brought a client from a separate database into the main application one time (when they decided they didn't still want to pay for a separate server). The developer missed just one place where client_id had to be added. Unfortunately, that sent emails to every client concerning this client's proprietary information and to make matters worse, it was a nightly process that ran in the middle of the night, so it wasn't known about until the next day. (the developer was very lucky not to get fired.) The point is be very very careful when you do this and test, test, test, and test some more. Make sure to test all automated behind the scenes stuff as well as the UI stuff.
what I was explaining in Florence towards the end of last year is if you had to keep the database names and the logical layer of the database the same for the application. In that case you'd do the following:
Collapse all the data into consolidated tables into one master, consolidated database (hereafter referred to as the consolidated DB).
Those tables would have to have an identifier like SiteID.
Create the new databases with the existing names.
Create views with the old table names which use row-level security to query the tables in the consolidated DB, but using the SiteID to filter.
Set up the databases for cross-database ownership chaining so that the service accounts can't "accidentally" query the base tables in the consolidated DB. Access must happen through the views or through stored procedures and other constructs that will enforce row-level security. Now, if it's the same service account for all sites, you can avoid the cross DB ownership chaining and assign the rights on the objects in the consolidated DB.
Rewrite the stored procedures to either handle the change (since they are now referring to views and they don't know to hit the base tables and include SiteID) or use InsteadOf Triggers on the views to intercept update requests and put the appropriate site specific information into the base tables.
If the data is large you could look at using a partioned view. This would simplify your access code as all you'd have to maintain is the view; however, if the data is not large, just add a column to identify the customer.
Depending on what the data is and your security requirements the threat of cross contamination may be a show stopper.
Assuming you have considered this and deem it "safe enough". You may need/want to create VIEWS or impose some other access control to prevent customers from seeing each-other's data.
IIRC a product called "Trusted Oracle" had the ability to partition data based on such a key (about the time Oracle 7 or 8 was out). The idea was that any given query would automagically have "and sourceKey = #userSecurityKey" (or some such) appended. The feature may have been rolled into later versions of the popular commercial product.
To expand on Gregory's answer, you can also make a parent ssis that calls the package doing the actual moving within a foreach loop container.
The parent package queries a config table and puts this in an object variable. The foreach loop then uses this recordset to pass variables to the package, such as your database name and any other details the package might need.
You table could list all of your client databases and have a flag to mark when you are ready to move them. This way you are not sitting around running the ssis package on 32,767 databases. I'm hooked on the foreach loop in ssis.