SQL Server and Oracle terminology -
In SQL Server If I have two applications and want to keep the database completely separate, I could simply create 1 database for each application therefore I end up with 2 databases.
If I wanted to do the same thing in oracle, what do I need to create?
- create a new "Databases"? "Instance", "Schema", or "Tablespace" per application?
(Note, these two applications is the same application used by two different companies, that do not share data!)
Reference: http://www.codeproject.com/Tips/492342/Concept-mapping-between-SQL-Server-and-Oracle
Having worked with SQL Server a lot in the past, I have sympathy with trying to figure out how Oracle organizes things as I struggled with the same thing. My comments below are from SQL Server 2000 and 2003 so forgive me if things have changed since then.
Previous responders have been helpful. I think one problematic assumption here is that there is an exact "level" equivalency between SQL Server and Oracle. What I mean by "level" is something that occupies the same space in the hierarchies that you have diagrammed above (and which, btw, I think are a good place to start but might need a bit of editing in a couple of places, for example how you have diagrammed "user" and "schema" in the Oracle hierarchy, I might put them side-by-side.) I do not think these concept "levels" match exactly between the DB platforms.
A schema in Oracle is somewhat equivalent to a separate database in SQL Server but not entirely.
I would say that the "walls" -- not an exact technical term but oh well -- between databases in SQL server are a bit higher than the "walls" between schemas in Oracle. Others might disagree but here is my reasoning:
a. A schema in Oracle is a purely logical construct. It denotes who has ownership of objects. It has nothing to do with the physical location or layout of the objects. A tablespace (orthagonal concept, as noted by a previous poster) indicates the physical location of objects. A tablespace can hold objects that are in multiple schemas and vice versa. In SQL Server these two concepts are sort of merged into one -- a database is both tablespace and schema, more or less, although in some respects within a DB in SQL Server you then have multiple owners with various object ownership. This can get a bit confusing because as I remember (it's been a couple of years) if not using NT Authentication the users are defined at the server level and then have to "link" to the users in the individual DBs.
b. I remember finding it easier, or at least a bit simpler, to assure myself that users to two separate DBs in SQL Server had no access to the relative other user's DB than I have found it in Oracle.
c. Because a DB in SQL server represents both physical storage and logical ownership, you can detach the DB and move it to another SQL Server Instance and attach it. You can't do this with a schema in Oracle. I mean, you can datapump the data out or back it up or whatever to another server and another schema, but that all takes at least some scripting and such or at least a fair amount of clicking in Enterprise Manager. It doesn't give you the one-click "Detach DB" option that you have in SQL Server which makes it a lot easier to get the idea that SQL Server DBs are units that you can more-or-less move back and forth between databases.
To sum things up, I think either option would work. That is, 1) Create two separate instances of Oracle with one schema in each instance for each application, or 2) Create two separate schemas in one Oracle instance.
There are pros and cons for each option. Option 1 is probably going to be more work to set up and configure but will also give you more separation, independence, ability to have separate hardware, etc., for each DB. Option 2 will be quite a bit simpler but gives you less separation between the data and greater risk of configuration screw-ups or other things allowing users of one schema to access the other. It also means you have to be a bit more careful that someone writing a query accessing data in one schema doesn't use all the CPU and IO resources and starve a user on the other schema.
Also, yes, you could use pluggable databases in 12c. However, given the fact that you need to ask these questions (no shame, just pointing out where you're at) makes me hesitant about recommending what can easily be a more complex setup.
TL;DR -- SQL Server isn't Oracle and Oracle isn't SQL Server. Either option works and there are pros and cons to each.
If you're using 12.1 or later with the multitenant option, you could create separate pluggable databases in a single container database. The other option, which works in any version of Oracle, would be to create a separate schema. It would be possible, as well, to create a separate database, though that is generally not the preferred approach unless you have a particular need to do things like upgrade the database that one application is using without affecting the other.
Creating a Database
If you create a separate database, you'd end up with complete separate memory structures (i.e. the SGA and PGA for each database would be separate) as well as a completely separate set of background processes (each database would have its own log writer process(es) for example). That is a very heavyweight option-- you can't have too many databases on a single server before you start having a lot of contention for RAM, for scheduling all the background processes, etc. It does provide for the maximum separation between different applications-- each database can be running a different version of Oracle with a different set of initialization parameters-- but this also tends to increase the complexity of managing the environment. This generally only makes sense when you have third party applications that require a specific version of the database or a specific set of initialization parameters.
Creating a Schema
If you create a separate schema, you still have a single database so the two schemas are sharing the same memory structures (competing with each other for space in the SGA's buffer cache, for example), initialization parameters, etc. You have to exercise a modicum of planning to ensure that that the two don't interfere with each other-- you'd probably want to make sure that nether application creates public synonyms or at least that they won't wan to create the same public synonym as the other application-- but this is generally pretty trivial.
Creating a Pluggable Database
This only works in 12.1 and only if you have the multitenant option. This is the most similar to the SQL Server concept of creating a new database for each application.
You should create a new instance (schema) on the same database, where the schema in oracle is the same as the SQL server database
Related
We are developing a database that consolidates few SQL Server DBs for a reporting requirement. Each DB has a number of views. No direct table or SP objects require to be accessible. All DBs and the new DB sitting in the same server. So we can develop cross-database queries quite easily with the Fully qualified object names.
i.e SELECT * FROM [SERVER].[DATABASE].[Schema].[View]
The problem is the depending database names differ between dev/ staging/ production environments of depending databases.
We have investigated the Synonym approach for the individual views and working fine. The advice we trying to seek from someone expert here is what is the best practice we should adhere to creating a single point to maintain this database alias instead of creating synonyms for each view so that we could do this once per environment and can maintain new queries same across different environments.
I have a structured database and software to handle it and I wanted to setup a demo version based off of a simple template version. I'm reading through some resources on temporary tables but I have questions.
What is the best way to go about cloning a "temporary" database while keeping a clean list of databases?
From what I've seen, there are two ways to do this - temporary local versions that are terminated at the end of the session, and tables that are stored in the database until deleted by the client or me.
I think I would prefer the 2nd option, because I would like to be able to see what they do with it. However, I do not want add a ton of throw-away databases and clutter my system.
How can I a) schedule these for deletion after say 30 days and b) if possible, keep these all under one umbrella, or in other words, is there a way to keep them out of my main list of databases and grouped by themselves.
I've thought about having one database and then serving up the information by using a unique ID for the user and 'faux indexes' so that it appears as 1,2,3 instead of 556,557,558 to solve B. I'm unsure how I could solve A, other than adding a date and protected columns and having a script that runs daily and deletes if over 30 days and not protected.
I apologize for the open-ended question, but the resources I've found are a bit ambiguous.
These aren't true temp tables in the sense that your DBMS knows them. What you're looking for is a way to have a demo copy of your database, probably with a cut-down data set. It's really no different from having any other non-production copy of your database.
Don't do this on your production database server.
Do not do this on your production database server.
Script the creation of your database schema. Depending on the DBMS you're using, this may be pretty easy. If you've got a good development/deployment/maintenance process for your system, this should already exist.
Create your database on the non-production server using the script(s) generated in the previous step. Use an easily-identifiable naming convention, like starting the database name with demo.
Load any data required into the tables.
Point the demo version of your app (that's running on your non-production servers) at this new database.
Create a script/process/job which looks at your database server and drops any databases that match your demo DB naming convention and were created more than 30 days ago.
Without details about your actual environment, people can't give concrete examples/sample code/instructions.
If you cannot run a second, independent database server for these demos, then you will have to make do with your production server. This is still a bad idea because of potential security exposures and performance impact on your production database (constrained resources).
Create a complete copy of your database (or at least the schema, with a reduced data set) for each demo.
Create a unique set of credentials for each of these demo databases. This account should have access to only its demo database.
Configure the demo instance(s) of your application to connect to the demo database
Here's why I'm pushing so hard for separate databases: If you keep copying your "demo" tables within the database, you will have to update your application code to point at those tables each time you do a new demo. Once you start doing this, you're taking a big risk with your demos - the code you keep changing isn't really the application you're running in production anymore. And if you miss one of those changes, you'll get unexpected results at best, and mangling of your production data at worst.
This is not a traditional scale-up or scale-out question.
Please bear with me, here first allow me give an example:
I created a Sql Azure server and create a 1GB database inside, cost $9.99 a month.
(It has a master database as well, 1G, but Microsoft not charge us for that)
Ok, here is my question comes, when I need another 1G database for my application. Why I need another 1GB database? You may ask me this because the azure can support database up to 50GB. My answer is distribution, I know the data will reach 50G eventually, so I create the data model distribute and spread the data in different database.
For all the sake of performance, which option I should use:
Create another database in same server
Create another server and create a new database inside
Both option cost same.
I guess option 2 will be better, isn't it?
I'm not sure there are strong (or any) performance implications, my understanding is that the consideration is mostly a management one as some entities, mostly around security, are defined at server level and some at database level.
Behind the scenes the model is quite different anyway, and a multi-tenant one, so having separate SQL Azure server does not actually mean you get a dedicated server per-se. theoretically separate servers or separate databases may end up looking exactly the same.
I'm considering undertaking a project to migrate a very large MS Access application to a new system based on SQL Server. The existing system is essentially an ERP application with a couple of dozen users, all sharing the Access database over the network. The database has around 300 tables and lots of messy VBA code. This system is beginning to break down (actually, it's amazing it has worked as long as it has).
Due to the size and complexity of the Access application, a 'big bang' approach is not really feasible. It seems sensible to rope off chunks of functionality and migrate them piecemeal to the new system. During the migration process, which I expect to take several months, there may be a need for both databases to be in operation and be able to query and modify data in both systems.
I have considered using something like the ADO.NET Entity Framework to implement a data abstraction layer to handle this, but as far as I can tell, the Entity Framework has no Access provider.
Does my approach seem reasonable? What other strategies have people used to accomplish similar goals?
You may find that the main problem is using the MS Access JET engine as the backend. I'm assuming that you do have an Access FE (frontend) with all objects except tables, and a BE (backend - tables only).
You may find that migrating the data to SQL Server, and linking the Access FE to that, would help alleviate problems immediately.
Then, if you don't want to continue to use MS Access as the FE, you could consider breaking it up into 'modules', and redesign modules one by one using a separate development platform.
We faced a similar situation a few years ago, but we knew from the beginning that we'll have to swich one day to SQL SERVER, so the whole code was written to work from an Access client to both Access AND SQL server databases.
The idea of having a 'one-step' migration to SQL server is certainly the easier way to manage this on the database side, and there are many tools for that. But, depending on the way your client app talks to the database, your code might then not work properly. If, for example, your code includes a lot of SQL instructions (or generates them on the fly by, for example, adding filters to SELECT instructions), your syntax might not be 'SQL server' compatible: access wildcards, dates, functions, will not work on SQL server.
In addition to this, and as said by #mjv, the other drawback of a one time switch to MS SQL is that you will inheritate many of the problems from the original database: wrong or inapropriate field names, inapropriate primary/foreign key policies, hidden one-to-many relations that you'd like to implement in the new database model, etc.
I'll propose here some principles and rules to implement a 'soft transition' solution, which clearly best fits you. Just to say that it's not going to be easy, but it's definitely very interesting, paticularly when dealing with 300 tables! Lucky you!
I assume here that yo have the ability to update the client code, and you'd prefer to keep at all times the same client interface. It is of course possible to have at transition time two different interfaces, one for each database, but this will be very confusing for the users, and a permanent source of frustration for them.
According to me, the best solution strongly depend on:
The original connection technology,
and the way data is managed in your
client's code: Access linked tables,
ODBC, ADODB, recordset, local
tables, forms recordsources, batch
updating, etc.
The possibilities to split your
tables and your app in 'mostly
independant' modules.
And you will not spare the following mandatory activities:
setup up of a transfer
procedure from Access database to SQL server. You
can use already existing tools (The
access upsizing wizard is very poor,
so do not hesitate to buy a real
one, like SSW or EMS SQL Manager,
very powerfull) or build your own
one with Visual Basic. If your plan
is to make some changes in Data
Definition, you'll definitely have
to write some code. Keep in mind
that you will run this code
maaaaaany times, so make sure that
it includes all time-saving
instructions that will allow you to
restart the process from the start
as many times as you want. You will
have to choose between 2 basic data
import strategies when importing data:
a - DELETE existing record, then INSERT imported record
b - UPDATE existing record from imported record
If you plan to switch to new Primary\foreign key types, you'll have to keep track of old identifiers in your new database model during the transition period. Do not hesitate to switch to GUID Primary Keys at this stage, especially if the plan is to replicate data on multiple sites one of these days.
This transfer procedure will be divided in modules corresponding to the 'logical' modules defined previously, and you should be able to run any of these modules independantly (keeping of course in mind that they'll probably have to be implemented in a specific order, where the 'customers' module has to run before the 'invoicing' module).
implement in your client's code the possibility to connect to both original ms-access database and new MS SQL server. Ideally, you should be able to manage from within your code both connections for displaying and validating data.
This possibility will be implemented by modules, where you will have, for each of them, a 'trial period', ie the possibility to choose at testing time between access connection and sql connection when using the module. Once testing is done and complete, the module can then be run in exclusive SQL server mode.
During the transfer period, that can last a few months, you will have to manage programatically the database constraints that exist between 'SQL server' modules and 'Access' modules. Going back to our customers/invoicing example, the customers module will be first switched to MS SQL. Before the Invoicing module can be switched, you'll have to implement programmatically the one to many relations between Customers and Invoices, where each of the tables will be in a different database. Such a constraint can be implemented on the Invoice form by populating the Customers combobox with the Customers recordset from the SQL server.
My proposal is to build your modules following your database model, allways beginning with the 'one' tables or your 'one-to-many' relations: basic lists like 'Units', 'Currencies', 'Countries', shall be switched first. You'll have a first 'hands on' experience in writting data transfer code, and managing a second connection in your client interface. You'll be then able to 'go up' in your database model, switching the 'products' and 'customers' tables (where units, countries and currencies are foreign keys) to the new server.
Good luck!
I would second the suggestion to upsize the back end to SQL Server as step 1.
I would never go to the suggested Step 2, though (i.e., replacing the Access front end with something else). I would instead suggest investing the effort in fixing the flaws of the schema, and adjusting the Access app to work with the new schema.
Obviously, it is never the case that everything just works hunky dory when you upsize -- some things that were previously quite fast will be dogs, and some things that were previously quite slow will be fast. And I've found that it is often the case that the problems are very often not where you anticipate that they will be. You can only figure out what needs to be fixed by testing.
Basically, anything that works poorly gets re-architected, or moved entirely server-side.
Leverage the investment in the existing Access app rather than tossing all that out and starting from scratch. Access is a fine front end for a SQL Server back end as long as you don't assume it's going to work just the same way as it would with a Jet/ACE back end.
...thinking out loud... I think this may work.
I appears that the complexity of the application resides in the various VBA modules rather than the database table/schema themselves. A possible migration path could therefore be to first migrate the data storage to SQL server, exactly as-is, as follow:
prevent any change to the data for a few hours
duplicate all tables to the SQL server; be sure to create the same indexes as well.
create linked tables to ODBC Source pointing to the newly created tables on SQL Server
these tables should have the very same name as the original tables (which therefore may require being renamed, say with a leading underscore, for possible reference).
Now, the application can be restarted and should be using the SQL tables rather than the Access tables. All logic should work as previously (right...), possible slowness to be expected, depending on the distance between the two machines.
All the above could be tested in about a day's work or so; the most tedious being the creation of the tables on SQL server (much of that can be automated, I'm sure). The next most tedious task is to assert that the application effectively works as previously, but with its storage on SQL.
EDIT: As suggested by a comment, I should stress that there is a [fair ?] possibility that the application would not readily work so smoothly under SQL server back-end, and could require weeks of hard work in testing and fixing. However, and unless some of these difficulties can be anticipated because of insight into the application not expressed in the question, I propose that attempting the "As-is" migration to SQL Server should be considered; after all, it may just work with minimal effort, and if it doesn't, we'd know this very quickly. This is therefore a hi-return, low risk proposal...
The main advantage sought with this approach is that there will be a single storage during the [as the OP expects] longer period during which the old Access application will co-exist with the new application.
The drawback of this approach, is that, at least at first, the schema of original database is reproduced verbatim, i.e. including some of its known quirks and legacy-herited idiosyncrasies. These schema issues (and the underlying application logic) can be in time corrected, but this is of course less easy than if the new application starts ab initio, with its own, separate, storage, and distinct schema.
After the storage is moved to SQL server, the most used and/or the most independent modules of the Access application can be re-written in the new application, and as significant portions of the original application is ported, effective usage, by select beta testers or by actual users can start to be switched to the new application.
Possibly, some kind of screen-scraping based logic or some other system could be used to produce an hybrid application which would provide the end users with a comprehensive application, which sometimes work from new logic, and sometimes from the original MS-Access program.
I'm no beginner to using SQL databases, and in particular SQL Server. However, I've been primarily a SQL 2000 guy and I've always been confused by schemas in 2005+. Yes, I know the basic definition of a schema, but what are they really used for in a typical SQL Server deployment?
I've always just used the default schema. Why would I want to create specialized schemas? Why would I assign any of the built-in schemas?
EDIT: To clarify, I guess I'm looking for the benefits of schemas. If you're only going to use it as a security scheme, it seems like database roles already filled that.. er.. um.. role. And using it a as a namespace specifier seems to have been something you could have done with ownership (dbo versus user, etc..).
I guess what I'm getting at is, what do Schemas do that you couldn't do with owners and roles? What are their specifc benefits?
Schemas logically group tables, procedures, views together. All employee-related objects in the employee schema, etc.
You can also give permissions to just one schema, so that users can only see the schema they have access to and nothing else.
Just like Namespace of C# codes.
They can also provide a kind of naming collision protection for plugin data. For example, the new Change Data Capture feature in SQL Server 2008 puts the tables it uses in a separate cdc schema. This way, they don't have to worry about a naming conflict between a CDC table and a real table used in the database, and for that matter can deliberately shadow the names of the real tables.
I know it's an old thread, but I just looked into schemas myself and think the following could be another good candidate for schema usage:
In a Datawarehouse, with data coming from different sources, you can use a different schema for each source, and then e.g. control access based on the schemas. Also avoids the possible naming collisions between the various source, as another poster replied above.
If you keep your schema discrete then you can scale an application by deploying a given schema to a new DB server. (This assumes you have an application or system which is big enough to have distinct functionality).
An example, consider a system that performs logging. All logging tables and SPs are in the [logging] schema. Logging is a good example because it is rare (if ever) that other functionality in the system would overlap (that is join to) objects in the logging schema.
A hint for using this technique -- have a different connection string for each schema in your application / system. Then you deploy the schema elements to a new server and change your connection string when you need to scale.
At an ORACLE shop I worked at for many years, schemas were used to encapsulate procedures (and packages) that applied to different front-end applications. A different 'API' schema for each application often made sense as the use cases, users, and system requirements were quite different. For example, one 'API' schema was for a development/configuration application only to be used by developers. Another 'API' schema was for accessing the client data via views and procedures (searches). Another 'API' schema encapsulated code that was used for synchronizing development/configuration and client data with an application that had it's own database. Some of these 'API' schemas, under the covers, would still share common procedures and functions with eachother (via other 'COMMON' schemas) where it made sense.
I will say that not having a schema is probably not the end of the world, though it can be very helpful. Really, it is the lack of packages in SQL Server that really creates problems in my mind... but that is a different topic.
I tend to agree with Brent on this one... see this discussion here. http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2010/05/why-use-schemas/
In short... schemas aren't terribly useful except for very specific use cases. Makes things messy. Do not use them if you can help it. And try to obey the K(eep) I(t) S(imple) S(tupid) rule.
I don't see the benefit in aliasing out users tied to Schemas. Here is why....
Most people connect their user accounts to databases via roles initially, As soon as you assign a user to either the sysadmin, or the database role db_owner, in any form, that account is either aliased to the "dbo" user account, or has full permissions on a database. Once that occurs, no matter how you assign yourself to a scheme beyond your default schema (which has the same name as your user account), those dbo rights are assigned to those object you create under your user and schema. Its kinda pointless.....and just a namespace and confuses true ownership on those objects. Its poor design if you ask me....whomever designed it.
What they should have done is created "Groups", and thrown out schemas and role and just allow you to tier groups of groups in any combination you like, then at each tier tell the system if permissions are inherited, denied, or overwritten with custom ones. This would have been so much more intuitive and allowed DBA's to better control who the real owners are on those objects. Right now its implied in most cases the dbo default SQL Server user has those rights....not the user.
I think schemas are like a lot of new features (whether to SQL Server or any other software tool). You need to carefully evaluate whether the benefit of adding it to your development kit offsets the loss of simplicity in design and implementation.
It looks to me like schemas are roughly equivalent to optional namespaces. If you're in a situation where object names are colliding and the granularity of permissions is not fine enough, here's a tool. (I'd be inclined to say there might be design issues that should be dealt with at a more fundamental level first.)
The problem can be that, if it's there, some developers will start casually using it for short-term benefit; and once it's in there it can become kudzu.
In SQL Server 2000, objects created were linked to that particular user, like if a user, say
Sam creates an object, say, Employees, that table would appear like: Sam.Employees. What
about if Sam is leaving the compnay or moves to so other business area. As soon you delete
the user Sam, what would happen to Sam.Employees table? Probably, you would have to change
the ownership first from Sam.Employees to dbo.Employess. Schema provides a solution to
overcome this problem. Sam can create all his object within a schemam such as Emp_Schema.
Now, if he creates an object Employees within Emp_Schema then the object would be
referred to as Emp_Schema.Employees. Even if the user account Sam needs to be deleted, the
schema would not be affected.
development - each of our devs get their own schema as a sandbox to play in.
Here a good implementation example of using schemas with SQL Server. We had several ms-access applications. We wanted to convert those to a ASP.NET App portal. Every ms-access application is written as an App for that portal. Every ms-access application has its own database tables. Some of those are related, we put those in the common dbo schema of SQL Server. The rest gets its own schemas. That way if we want to know what tables belong to an App on the ASP.NET app portal that can easily be navigated, visualised and maintained.