I've seen examples of web apps that has user accounts and stores information about the users, but does not use a database. I've been searching for a while and cannot figure out how this would be done without a database. Can someone point me in a direction?
Clearly the data has to be stored somewhere. It could stored on the client, using cookies or HTML5 Web Storage, but this would make it nearly impossible for the data to be shared across devices. (Technically, the data could be shared between devices provided that another device maintains an active connection to the web server at the same time; the web server would merely transfer the data between devices without storing it. However, this would be extremely impractical.) If the user data is stored in any centralized location, there would effectively be a database, even if specialized database software, such as MySQL, is not used, i.e. just using the filesystem of the server directly.
Some used database such as SQLite to store data, but for other application they simply saved it to a file somewhere in the directory (may be cookies, temporary file, settings/configuration, ....etc).
There are 2 main ways of storing data based on the requirement:
Storing data On client
1.HTML5 Webstorage is now available, which store data locally and it can support data upto 5MB and it is more secured and faster.
2.Cookies
Storing data On Server
Through flat files that is text file or through XML files.XML is standard in many companies as a way to store data. This is really quick.
Having said that, there are downsides to it as well.
Related
I am writing a new application at the moment and certain entities in the application have images (just used for display purposes on the website).
I want to host my application on azure later and I am trying to figure out whether it would be better to use Azure Blob storage to store all images or just store them in the DB?
What is better performance wise when loading the images on the website?
SQL: Controller -> DB -> VIEW
Azure Blob: Controller -> Webcall to Azure DB -> VIEW
Could someone please explain benefits of either solution to me so that I can make up my mind?
How you design your database storage scheme is subjective, but there are objective things to consider in your scenario. I'll address those, and leave the "which should I choose" to you...
Azure Storage blobs are designed for bulk "block" data (such as documents, images, etc). Something like SQL Database is designed for metadata (stuff you search/index/query).
Everything can be done via SQL Database, and you would only need to worry about SQL queries (and it sounds like that's something you're already familiar with). SQL Server (and SQL Database) have always had the ability to store binary content via its BLOB type.
While you can store your images in SQL Database, you will find that your database size increases considerably, vs just storing queryable metadata. And while SQL Database service allows you to scale your storage, you'll find larger scale in blob storage (up to 500TB) at a lower cost than SQL Database service. If you run SQL Server in a VM, then you'll still have storage cost (attached disks) equivalent to blobs, along with VM costs.
Storage blobs, by themselves, don't provide a query language - you will need to know the container and/or blob name. So, for optimum searching, you'll want a queryable database with your metadata (e.g. SQL Database).
If you store your images in blobs, and reference them via URI in your database, you will be able to query against your database, find the image's URI, and then read from blob storage appropriately.
Also note: With blobs, you'll be able to provide direct image URI access to, say, a browser or an app (even if the blob is marked as private), which allows you to then bypass your app tier when delivering binary (image) content to the end-user. Blobs may also be cached in the CDN, which you cannot do with SQL Database.
Which you choose is ultimately up to you; I simply provided the objective reasons to use each.
Much cheaper in BLOB.
You are also probably going the get faster transfer as BLOB. Now the initial lookup may be a little faster with SQL but for a large image I think BLOB would win. SQL is just plain not optimized for big stuff and BLOB is.
And you keep SQL free to serve up short stuff.
There is a situation in my company where we are developing a light weight .net web application with least dependencies. Application will be used hosted on client server. However there will not be any internet connection and they will use application locally.
We do not want any type of database installation on client machine. We want to keep it as simple as possible on client side. for this purpose we want to save/access data from file, as data on client side will not exceed more than 100 000 rows. We are also concerned about the speed for accessing data.
Here I want to ask how the data should be saved in file so that it can be accessed fast? What file format should be?
Whether I can use any db file which does not require any database installation on client side.
You could save all data to a json file, this will become increasingly slow and prone to corruption.
Also, have a look at SqlLite.
You can try Sql Compact Edition or SqlLite. Both are file based solution and fit as per your need.
Advantage of using these two would be that you can perform almost all the database queries on it and the data retrieval will be very fast. Also the you can think of optimizing the data storage and create tables etc.
You can use SQLite which is heavily uses in such scenarios (among others used by Chrome and Firefox). It is even public domain, so no license costs etc.
as part of an application I am trying to create, I am looking to data storage solutions. However, I have found many solutions that I can not quite directly apply to the position I am in.
Basically, I want to display in my app, a directory of the staff of my organization. About 100 or so individuals. I want to have generic attributes such as name, email, office#, etc.
However, my goal is to not end up with a static representation of the staff here! (people come and go, switch offices,etc.)
I am looking for the best way (if possible) to maintain a small database that I can administer, and if perhaps, something were to change to someone here, I can make the change and the change will be reflected accordingly.
Please help! I tried submitting my first app but got rejected because I relied on a webview to accomplish this task. This is an internship opportunity and my first real chance at development. Any help will be GREATLY appreciated.
Thanks!!!!!
The iPhone directory app can be used to store data in any format you want (xml, json or a proprietary format), because all you do is save a file. But if you choose to use the iPhone app directory to store data you have to write code to read the file (very simple to do) and parse the information (not so simple because the dificulty scales based on the information complexity).
SQLite is a tool to store structured data, providing you a set of tools to access and use the information. You don't need to parse the information, because SQLite does it for you by using transact sql queries.
By now, because you have a list of individuals, and these people are relationed to offices, I think you should use SQLite.
The Code Data is a object graph management, it's a tool to give you more options over data manipulation, and can make your life very easy if you have a lot of data and very complex data models. I don't think you need that for your particular problem, but I think you should learn it at some point.
UPDATE 1
You application will have something like:
A core database (sql server, oracle, my sql, etc) will hold your individuals information (your cloud database).
A web page (php, asp.net, etc) will display the core database information in json or xml format (your api).
A iphone app will download the information from the web page and store it in the local SQLite. (you have to decide when you will update the local sql lite, like when is opened, once a week, once a moth, twice a day, etc) (your local storage method).
Display the local SQLite individuals information in the app.
We are using several text files as Templates to create the results of a WCF Data Services - Service Operation call.
The text files are each less than 3000 Bites Max.
What are the pros and cons of storing my template files on the file system with the WCF Data Services files vs storing them in a SQL Server 2008 R2 server?
Prior to SQL Server 2008, I recommended strongly against storing large objects like text files in the database. It tended to slow down access and made them generally harder to work with. Instead, I generally recommended storing links to the files in question.
Of course, this meant that the database would not protect the files in the event someone deleted something they shouldn't and the files needed to be backed up and transferred separately from the database.
With SQL Server 2008, I think many of the former problems have been overcome using the filestream functions and I think that storing files using filestream can be quite useful at times. It continues to store the actual data outside the database, which avoids many of the former complications. But it still binds the two together and permits the database to protect the files rather than just relying on the links in the database to be correct.
There's a lot of pros and cons for either storage method. Nowadays (my opinion has changed, and may change again some day), I'd focus on security and managability.
If it is sensitive data, you might get a bit more security by storing them in the database. If nothing else, it might be more difficult to hack a database than a file system. If security is not so important, it can be easier/simpler to store it on the OS.
For managing, if the data gets updated (and how frequently does that happen), how easy is it to update? One instance in a database is simpler to update (or corrupt...) than an instance on each of however many servers are in your web farm. (1 server, no problem, 20 servers, possible headache.)
I think it's better to store the data directly in the database. This makes it even faster to access because a database is more efficient in reading and generally handling data. You could always store movies in databases - that's no problem. Then it's also possible to stream large data.
For security reasons existing more as enough options to configure your database. And if you cluster your database - this is even more scalable.
I am about to create an ASP.NET MVC app which will have over 2000 products and each products will approx 20 photos. The app will be asp.net mvc app and
I am using sql server 2008 r2 to manage my data. which way is the better approcah here;
Uploading pictures to a path and
storing their file names to database
in order to be able to make a
relation to each other.
Storing pictures inside the database
as byte as well and retreive them
from there when needded.
definitely in the filesystem (store path) is better, i have done both in the past.
Against SQL server to store images
A) betting data in and out can be more difficult as have to used blob type objects and some ORMs don't really cater for this
B) your data base is much bigger so effects your backup/restore policy. The more frequently you backup the better but space will be increased. Storing in file, yep you still need to backup but backing up filesystem is easy.
C) when you run out of storage space you just add another NAS drive / server and start storing images there, so scales horizontally
The common perception is not as good as data stored in two places but for me its better as the type of data in stored in the best storage medium for the data types ..
Definitely storing as a path rather than the byte array. This means you can easily change the actual image itself without having to alter any code or muck around in SQL (as long s the new file has the same name as the old one).
Hope this helps.
In the database using FILESTREAM which combines the 2 ideas (file and database)
FILESTREAM integrates the SQL Server Database Engine with an NTFS file system by storing varbinary(max) binary large object (BLOB) data as files on the file system. Transact-SQL statements can insert, update, query, search, and back up FILESTREAM data. Win32 file system interfaces provide streaming access to the data.
This changes the file vs database arguments
If you want to store paths only, then you'll have to accept the fact that images and database will get out of synch over time.