My current system, I'll call it B, gets data from an old legacy SQL database, A, via replication. I do not have any control over this legacy system other than access to the database. Replication was initially chosen to keep the two systems separate as well as to reduce any chances of performance hits on the legacy system, A, from my system, B. In B, there is a task that runs every 15 minutes that loads data from the replicated source tables and transforms it into the format I need and saves it to a SQL database that I own. This task is currently very slow as it loads up all possible data and checks for changes before it decides if any updates need to be made.
I'm creating a new system, C, that also needs to use the data from A as well as interact with B. The data is needed in a completely different format for C, so I am not able to reuse much of B, so speeding up B is not an option. Ideally, I'd like to switch B over to whatever solution chosen for C, but in the meantime, whatever is picked needs to play well with replication.
I am researching new options to get data from A as well as some way to get change notifications. Ideally, I'd love for A to send messages when there are changes but this is not possible due to the fragility of A.
I've looked into SQL Query Notifications, specifically SQLDependency and SQLTableDependency. I need to be able to see what data has changed, so SQLTableDependency might be better but its only listening when the application is running so nothing is listening when it stops. I'd like to be able to cache data instead of stitching it into the format I need when I load my website.
I've also looked into Change Tracking and Change Data Capture. Both seem like they could work in my current set up but they both seem heavier than what I need. I am also concerned about both of these running with replication. For example, if replication is re-initializing, all data is truncated and it looks like I have a ton of changes?
Am I going in the right direction given the constraints of my system? Does anyone have any other ideas of some way to get data changes? Is there some other messaging system that can be used with SQL?
Thanks!
I have a website with admin panel, which people can upload files and data. My website is on 2 servers and use nlb, and also two servers are synced together with dfs, also I have 2 SQL Server on both servers and they are synced too.
The problem is syncing files on both servers take sometimes,
Now just imagine I have a table with these fields:
Name, price, fileName
File address is point to somewhere of physical disk which is synced in 2 servers.
Now imagine the website run this query:
Select * from myTable
How can I tell SQL that just show that records which the fileName field exists in physical disk?
Note: I want it to do it with SQL, not in my application.
There are two options:
You already mentioned it. It is a good idea to add a column (FileExists bit (Y/N)) which tells you directly the status of physical copy.
Second option is tedious as you need to create custom logic which identifies the physical copy at runtime as per the first commented link given by #MichałKomorowski.
Ideally a database is used to store data and communicate with the application. Outer world interfaces within a database will be tedious work as well as decrease performance.
For example, if you implement a function to check physical file and in select query as above you want, you used that function, so extra headache to checking the status will definitely increase the time and performance decrease. Just think again.
We have data stored in a data warehouse as follows:
Price
Date
Product Name (varchar(25))
We currently only have four products. That changes very infrequently (on average once every 10 years). Once every business day, four new data points are added representing the day's price for each product.
On the website, a user can request this information by entering a date range and selecting one or more products names. Analytics shows that the feature is not heavily used (about 10 users requests per week).
It was suggested that the data warehouse should daily push (SFTP) a CSV file containing all data (currently 6718 rows of this data and growing by four each day) to the web server. Then, the web server would read data from the file and display that data whenever a user made a request.
Usually, the push would only be once a day, but more than one push could be possible to communicate (infrequent) price corrections. Even in the price correction scenario, all data would be delivered in the file. What are problems with this approach?
Would it be better to have the web server make a request to the data warehouse per user request? Or does this have issues such as a greater chance for network errors or performance issues?
Would it be better to have the web server make a request to the data warehouse per user request?
Yes it would. You have very little data, so there is no need to try and 'cache' this in some way. (Apart from the fact that CSV might not be the best way to do this).
There is nothing stopping you from doing these requests from the webserver to the database server. With as little information as this you will not find performance an issue, but even if it would be when everything grows, there is a lot to be gained on the database-side (indexes etc) that will help you survive the next 100 years in this fashion.
The amount of requests from your users (also extremely small) does not need any special treatment, so again, direct query would be the best.
Or does this have issues such as a greater chance for network errors or performance issues?
Well, it might, but that would not justify your CSV method. Examples and why you need not worry, could be
the connection with the databaseserver is down.
This is an issue for both methods, but with only one connection per day the change of a 1-in-10000 failures might seem to be better for once-a-day methods. But these issues should not come up very often, and if they do, you should be able to handle them. (retry request, give a message to user). This is what enourmous amounts of websites do, so trust me if I say that this will not be an issue. Also, think of what it would mean if your daily update failed? That would present a bigger problem!
Performance issues
as said, this is due to the amount of data and requests, not a problem. And even if it becomes one, this is a problem you should be able to catch at a different level. Use a caching system (non CSV) on the database server. Use a caching system on the webserver. Fix your indexes to stop performance from being a problem.
BUT:
It is far from strange to want your data-warehouse separated from your web system. If this is a requirement, and it surely could be, the best thing you can do is re-create your warehouse-database (the one I just defended as being good enough to query directly) on another machine. You might get good results by doing a master-slave system
your datawarehouse is a master-database: it sends all changes to the slave but is inexcessible otherwise
your 2nd database (on your webserver even) gets all updates from the master, and is read-only. you can only query it for data
your webserver cannot connect to the datawarehouse, but can connect to your slave to read information. Even if there was an injection hack, it doesn't matter, as it is read-only.
Now you don't have a single moment where you update the queried database (the master-slave replication will keep it updated always), but no chance that the queries from the webserver put your warehouse in danger. profit!
I don't really see how SQL injection could be a real concern. I assume you have some calendar type field that the user fills in to get data out. If this is the only form just ensure that the only field that is in it is a date then something like DROP TABLE isn't possible. As for getting access to the database, that is another issue. However, a separate file with just the connection function should do fine in most cases so that a user can't, say open your webpage in an HTML viewer and see your database connection string.
As for the CSV, I would have to say querying a database per user, especially if it's only used ~10 times weekly would be much more efficient than the CSV. I just equate the CSV as overkill because again you only have ~10 users attempting to get some information, to export an updated CSV every day would be too much for such little pay off.
EDIT:
Also if an attack is a big concern, which that really depends on the nature of the business, the data being stored, and the visitors you receive, you could always create a backup as another option. I don't really see a reason for this as your question is currently stated, but it is a possibility that even with the best security an attack could happen. That mainly just depends on if the attackers want the information you have.
background:
I'm in the design phase of building an app.
I want the app to display text and images, the problem is that I will have A LOT of them. hundreds to thousands.
This is my largest app so far, and I am unsure on how to handle all the data.
The question???????:
What would be the best way to store and access these images and text?
Would I use a formal database approach like SQL?
Or would it be better to navigate files/folders e.g. dropping all the files in res/drawable?
potentially useful facts:
The database will be stored and accessed natively so it can be accessed off-line.
The user will not be adding to the database in anyway, only accessing the data.
the database will be updated every 6 months.
The application 'page' will display 1-5 images along with several blocks of text.
Concept:
the app will be like a recipe app...the user will pick some parameters e.g. ingredients, type, diet.. then select a recipe. And then several images and blocks of text will be displayed showing and detailing the process of some recipe.
I apologize if this is repeated but I didn't see a specific answer for my purposes.
The "Best" approach will depend on the functionality of the database server in question.
Generally, you should store the images "In" the database until that becomes a performance issue. Once you start storing images "Outside" of the database you will have to handle all the issue that are normally taken care of by the database. Disk space management, orphan records, file name conflicts, folder file limits, to name just a few. Depending on your situation these may be big issues or thay may be nothing to worry about.
I've seen several application where images (or attachements) were kept "Outside" the database, and in each case it was done poorly. There are just so many issues to handle, and most developers don't even think of half of them. In many cases the performance of storing the images "In" the databse was acceptable, but the developers decided against it because they just knew it would not perform well.
If your using SQL server 2008 the Filestream data type is ideal for your case. It stores the binary files outside of the database but behaves as a normal field. Also you are able to read/write the files using a stream instead of getting/setting the whole file as a byte array (like when using varbin(max))
If you don't have this functionality in your database, I would recommend storing the images outside of the DB
Its probably a better idea to use a file based approach for deployed static resources.
At the very least because taking a dependency on file system is typically easier to manage then taking a dependency on a DB.
Also this line indicates some sort of non-web client
The database will be stored and accessed natively so it can be accessed off-line."
This means if you go with the DB approach you'll have a couple of other interesting problems
Deployment
Depending on the platform deploying a DB can be a real bear depending on your target platform. What happens if they if already have the engine but its a different version.
Resources
Is your DB going to be client/server based (like MySQL/SQL Server etc)? If so then your app has to now manage the current state of its process. If not then you'll be using a file-based db SQL Lite/MS Access, at which point I would question why using a static DB is worth doing at all.
One final note. There's nothing stopping your Content Production environment from using a DB. Its quite common for Content producers to maintain a database for their content that will you will later use to produce the files for publishing/deployment.
I have a multi-user application that keeps a centralized logfile for activity. Right now, that logging is going into text files to the tune of about 10MB-50MB / day. The text files are rotated daily by the logger, and we keep the past 4 or 5 days worth. Older than that is of no interest to us.
They're read rarely: either when developing the application for error messages, diagnostic messages, or when the application is in production to do triage on a user-reported problem or a bug.
(This is strictly an application log. Security logging is kept elsewhere.)
But when they are read, they're a pain in the ass. Grepping 10MB text files is no fun even with Perl: the fields (transaction ID, user ID, etc..) in the file are useful, but just text. Messages are written sequentially, one like at a time, so interleaved activity is all mixed up when trying to follow a particular transaction or user.
I'm looking for thoughts on the topic. Anyone done application-level logging with an SQL database and liked it? Hated it?
I think that logging directly to a database is usually a bad idea, and I would avoid it.
The main reason is this: a good log will be most useful when you can use it to debug your application post-mortem, once the error has already occurred and you can't reproduce it. To be able to do that, you need to make sure that the logging itself is reliable. And to make any system reliable, a good start is to keep it simple.
So having a simple file-based log with just a few lines of code (open file, append line, close file or keep it opened, repeat...) will usually be more reliable and useful in the future, when you really need it to work.
On the other hand, logging successfully to an SQL server will require that a lot more components work correctly, and there will be a lot more possible error situations where you won't be able to log the information you need, simply because the log infrastructure itself won't be working. And something worst: a failure in the log procedure (like a database corruption or a deadlock) will probably affect the performance of the application, and then you'll have a situation where a secondary component prevents the application of performing it's primary function.
If you need to do a lot of analysis of the logs and you are not comfortable using text-based tools like grep, then keep the logs in text files, and periodically import them to an SQL database. If the SQL fails you won't loose any log information, and it won't even affect the application's ability to function. Then you can do all the data analysis in the DB.
I think those are the main reasons why I don't do logging to a database, although I have done it in the past. Hope it helps.
We used a Log Database at my last job, and it was great.
We had stored procedures that would spit out overviews of general system health for different metrics that I could load from a web page. We could also quickly spit out a trace for a given app over a given period, and if I wanted it was easy to get that as a text file, if you really just like grep-ing files.
To ensure the logging system does not itself become a problem, there is of course a common code framework we used among different apps that handled writing to the log table. Part of that framework included also logging to a file, in case the problem is with the database itself, and part of it involves cycling the logs. As for the space issues, the log database is on a different backup schedule, and it's really not an issue. Space (not-backed-up) is cheap.
I think that addresses most of the concerns expressed elsewhere. It's all a matter of implementation. But if I stopped here it would still be a case of "not much worse", and that's a bad reason to go the trouble of setting up DB logging. What I liked about this is that it allowed us to do some new things that would be much harder to do with flat files.
There were four main improvements over files. The first is the system overviews I've already mentioned. The second, and imo most important, was a check to see if any app was missing messages where we would normally expect to find them. That kind of thing is near-impossible to spot in traditional file logging unless you spend a lot of time each day reviewing mind-numbing logs for apps that just tell you everything's okay 99% of the time. It's amazing how freeing the view to show missing log entries is. Most days we didn't need to look at most of the log files at all... something that would be dangerous and irresponsible without the database.
That brings up the third improvement. We generated a single daily status e-mail, and it was the only thing we needed to review on days that everything ran normally. The e-mail included showed errors and warnings. Missing logs were re-logged as warning by the same db job that sends the e-mail, and missing the e-mail was a big deal. We could send forward a particular log message to our bug tracker with one click, right from within the daily e-mail (it was html-formatted, pulled data from a web app).
The final improvement was that if we did want to follow a specific app more closely, say after making a change, we could subscribe to an RSS feed for that specific application until we were satisfied. It's harder to do that from a text file.
Where I'm at now, we rely a lot more on third party tools and their logging abilities, and that means going back to a lot more manual review. I really miss the DB, and I'm contemplated writing a tool to read those logs and re-log them into a DB to get these abilities back.
Again, we did this with text files as a fallback, and it's the new abilities that really make the database worthwhile. If all you're gonna do is write to a DB and try to use it the same way you did the old text files, it adds unnecessary complexity and you may as well just use the old text files. It's the ability to build out the system for new features that makes it worthwhile.
yeah, we do it here, and I can't stand it. One problem we have here is if there is a problem with the db (connection, corrupted etc), all logging stops. My other big problem with it is that it's difficult to look through to trace problems. We also have problems here with the table logs taking up too much space, and having to worry about truncating them when we move databases because our logs are so large.
I think its clunky compared to log files. I find it difficult to see the "big picture" with it being stored in the database. I'll admit I'm a log file person, I like being able to open a text file and look through (regex) it instead of using sql to try and search for something.
The last place I worked we had log files of 100 meg plus. They're a little difficult to open, but if you have the right tool it's not that bad. We had a system to log messages too. You could quickly look at the file and determine which set of log entries belonged which process.
We've used SQL Server centralized logging before, and as the previous posted mentioned, the biggest problem was that interrupted connectivity to the database would mean interrupted logging. I actually ended up adding a queuing routine to the logging that would try the DB first, and write to a physical file if it failed. You'd just have to add code to that routine that, on a successful log to the db, would check to see if any other entries are queued locally, and write those too.
I like having everything in a DB, as opposed to physical log files, but just because I like parsing it with reports I've written.
I think the problem you have with logging could be solved with logging to SQL, provided that you are able to split out the fields you are interested in, into different columns. You can't treat the SQL database like a text field and expect it to be better, it won't.
Once you get everything you're interested in logging to the columns you want it in, it's much easier to track the sequential actions of something by being able to isolate it by column. Like if you had an "entry" process, you log everything normally with the text "entry process" being put into the "logtype" column or "process" column. Then when you have problems with the "entry process", a WHERE statement on that column isolates all entry processes.
we do it in our organization in large volumes with SQL Server. In my openion writing to database is better because of the search and filter capability. Performance wise 10 to 50 MB worth of data and keeping it only for 5 days, does not affect your application. Tracking transaction and users will be very easy compare to tracking it from text file since you can filter by transaction or user.
You are mentioning that the files read rarely. So, decide if is it worth putting time in development effort to develop the logging framework? Calculate your time spent on searching the logs from log files in a year vs the time it will take to code and test. If the time spending is 1 hour or more a day to search logs it is better to dump logs in to database. Which can drastically reduce time spend on solving issues.
If you spend less than an hour then you can use some text search tools like "SRSearch", which is a great tool that I used, searches from multiple files in a folder and gives you the results in small snippts ("like google search result"), where you click to open the file with the result interested. There are other Text search tools available too. If the environment is windows, then you have Microsoft LogParser also a good tool available for free where you can query your file like a database if the file is written in a specific format.
Here are some additional pros and cons and the reason why I prefer log files instead of databases:
Space is not that cheap when using VPS's. Recovering space on live database systems is often a huge hassle and you might have to shut down services while recovering space. If your logs is so important that you have to keep them for years (like we do) then this is a real problem. Remember that most databases does not recover space when you delete data as it simply re-uses the space - not much help if you are actually running out of space.
If you access the logs fequently and you have to pull daily reports from a database with one huge log table and millions and millions of records then you will impact the performance of your database services while querying the data from the database.
Log files can be created and older logs archived daily. Depending on the type of logs massive amounts of space can be recovered by archiving logs. We save around 6x the space when we compress our logs and in most cases you'll probably save much more.
Individual smaller log files can be compressed and transferred easily without impacting the server. Previously we had logs ranging in the 100's of GB's worth of data in a database. Moving such large databases between servers becomes a major hassle, especially due to the fact that you have to shut down the database server while doing so. What I'm saying is that maintenance becomes a real pain the day you have to start moving large databases around.
Writing to log files in general are a lot faster than writing to DB. Don't underestimate the speed of your operating system file IO.
Log files only suck if you don't structure your logs properly. You may have to use additional tools and you may even have to develop your own to help process them, but in the end it will be worth it.
You could log to a comma or tab delimited text format, or enable your logs to be exported to a CSV format. When you need to read from a log export your CSV file to a table on your SQL server then you can query with standard SQL statements. To automate the process you could use SQL Integration Services.
I've been reading all the answers and they're great. But in a company I worked due to several restrictions and audit it was mandatory to log into a database. Anyway, we had several ways to log and the solution was to install a pipeline where our programmers could connect to the pipeline and log into database, file, console, or even forwarding log to a port to be consumed by another applications.
This pipeline doesn't interrupt the normal process and keeping a log file at the same time you log into the database ensures you rarely lose a line.
I suggest you investigate further log4net that it's great for this.
http://logging.apache.org/log4net/
I could see it working well, provided you had the capability to filter what needs to be logged and when it needs to be logged. A log file (or table, such as it is) is useless if you can't find what you're looking for or contains unnecessary information.
Since your logs are read rarely, I would write them on file (better performance and reliability).
Then, if and only if you need to read them, I would import the log file in a data base (better analysis).
Doing so, you get the advantages of both methods.