I currently have a hatchling plan with hostgator that I will be using to host the database end of my iOS messaging application. Each user has their own table to store all of their friends. If I have a few hundred people with accounts (this means a few hundred tables) will the web server be able to handle potentially thousands of requests per day to access these tables, or must I purchase a larger hosting plan?
No idea wether or not it "crashes" your server or you need another hosting plan, but I can say one thing for sure: that simply is a very very very bad idea.
Create a table User and create a table Friend which basically contains two references to User entries/rows. Maybe add a timestamp or a state or whatever additional data you need.
Each user should be represented by one entry / row in the User table.
Each friendship should be represented by one entry / row in the Friend table.
Related
I want to create two users
App_dbo which is used to deploy scripts
App_batch which is used to run jobs
I googled it and found SQL Script
I did not understand why I need to create a LOGIN.
What is the process to create a user ?
Let me try to explain how the login and users work on a little example.
Imagine you are going to stay in a hotel, you've booked a room. At the reception they check your id and give you the key for your room. The id is your login, it is only checked once at the reception and you get access to whatever you are eligible for. If you paid for more rooms, you will get multiple keys.
In the SQL server, the rooms are the databases and the keys are your users. You can map multiple users to the login as long as the users are in a different databases - you get keys for all rooms you've paid for using just one id.
There is also a case where login doesn't have any users mapped. It can have permissions to create new databases or update infrastructure, but will not have access to the existing databases. This can be a case of a server admin. In the hotel example it is the technical maintenance employee who fixes pipes or electric wires. He has access to the hotel, but doesn't have keys for any rooms.
Therefore, login gives access to the sql server (hotel common areas), however, it doesn't give you access to any database. You need user(s) mapped to your login to get a database(s) access(es).
Afaik, you can't map two users from the same db to one login (you only get one key for each room you've access too).
There are also other cases, like the AD one mentioned in the discussion below the question, where you can map multiple (external) identities to a single login etc, you can have users without login etc. I recommend to study documentation or get some good book explaining all possibilities. Good start might be here.
Hope this helps to understand how it works to a human being, there are plenty of answers how to set it up technically, for example the one you've referenced.
In short: I have a client who wish to be able to add domain tables, without adding SQL tables.
I am working with an application in wich data are organized and made available with a postgresql catalogue. What I mean by catalogue is that the database hold the path to the actual data file(s) as well as some metadata.
Adding a new table means that the (Java class of the) client application has to be updated. This is a costly process for the client, who want us to find a way to let him add new kind of data in the catalogue, without having to change the schema.
I don't have many more specificities about the db itself and it's configuration as I'm usualy mostly a client of the said db.
My idea: to solve this was to have a generic table with the most often used columns (like date, comment etc.) and a column containing a domain key. The domain key would be used by the client application to request the kind of generic data is needed (and would have no meaning whatsoever to the db provider). Adding metadata could be done with a companion file within the catalogue and further filtering would have to be done on the client side.
Question: as I am by no mean an SQL expert, I would like to know if it is an acceptable solution, and what limitation I could be facing ? I'm thinking of performance, data volume etc. Or maybe a different approach, is advisable ?
Regarding expected volume, for a single domain data type, it could be arround 30 new entry per day.
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.
Excuse me if the question is simple. We have multiple medical clinics running each running their own SQL database EHR.
Is there anyway I can interface each local SQL database with a cloud system?
I essentially want to use the current patient data that one is consulting with at that moment to generate a pathology request that links to a cloud ?google app engine database.
As a medical student / software developer this project of yours interests me greatly!
If you don't mind me asking, where are you based? I'm from the UK and unfortunately there's just no way a system like this would get off the ground as most data is locked in proprietary databases.
What you're talking about is fairly complex anyway, whatever country you're in I assume there would have to be a lot of checks / security around any cloud system that dealt with patient data. Theoretically though, what you would want to do ideally is create an online database (cloud, hosted, intranet etc), and scrap the local databases entirely.
You then have one 'pool' of data each clinic can pull information from (i.e. ALL records for patient #3563). They could then edit that data and/or insert new records and SAVE them, exporting them back to the main database.
If there is a need to keep certain information private to one clinic only this could still be achieved on one database in a number of ways, or you could retain parts of the local database and have them merge with the cloud data as they're requested by the clinic
This might be a bit outdated, but you guys should checkout https://www.firebase.com/. It would let you do what you want fairly easily. We just did this for a client in the exact same business your are.
Basically, Firebase lets you work with a Central Database on the Cloud, that is automatically synchronised with all its front-ends. It even handles losing the connection to the server automagically. It's the best solution I've found so far to keep several systems running against one only cloud database.
We used to have our own backend that would try its best to sync changes, but you need to be really careful with inter-system unique IDs for your tables (i.e. going to one of the branches and making a new user won't yield the same id that one that already exists in any other branch or the central database). It becomes cumbersome very quickly.
CakePHP can automatically generate this kind of Unique IDs pretty easily and automatically, but you still have to work on sync'ing all the local databases with the central repository.
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.