What is the "best" way to look for changes in tables on a SQL Server 2008 instance?
We have an external application and the user wants to be "informed", when changes happen...
Today we use triggers, but the performance is not the best.
I thougt SqlDependency (Service Broker) in combination with .NET (C# application...) is faster. Or are there any other possibilities?
Thanks in advance,
Frank
Consider using Change Tracking.
Change tracking is a lightweight solution that provides an efficient change tracking mechanism for applications. Typically, to enable applications to query for changes to data in a database and access information that is related to the changes, application developers had to implement custom change tracking mechanisms. Creating these mechanisms usually involved a lot of work and frequently involved using a combination of triggers, timestamp columns, new tables to store tracking information, and custom cleanup processes.
Synchronous change tracking will always have some overhead. However, using change tracking can help minimize the overhead. The overhead will frequently be less than that of using alternative solutions, especially solutions that require the use triggers.
If you would change your strategy to use stored procedures for altering data, your stored procedure could send change notification along with updating data.
Change notification can be implemented f.ex. as another table, watched by your application.
I'm writing an application that is using a database (currently MySQL 4) to store data.
It is likely that I will make changes to this in the form of updates later to add additional data. Updating the application is simple, it essentially comes down to overwriting the program files with the new ones. However how do I go about updating the database schema?
The database is remote and so my application might exist in several places, so simply dumping the ALTER and CREATE statements in an installer would result in the changes being made multiple times, and I have been asked explicitly for an automatic solution that allows for the application copies to be updated over a transition period, and for schema updates to be automatic.
I considered examining the schema at start-up to look for missing tables and columns, and adding them as needed, however this does not seem like a clean solution. I also considered putting some kind of “schema version” number on the database, but can’t see any way to do this short of a single row table with an int “Version” column which doesn’t seem a good way either.
I can highly recommend Liquibase. It really does work - I've used it and was very impressed.
Essentially, it keeps its own log of statements run on a database and runs them only if not already run/needed. It is XML driven and allows you to use optional pre- and post-execution statements and conditions. You check your XML files into your source control and invoke it from your build tool. It's even suitable for driving production releases.
It's magic.
Rather than rolling your own system for versioning your database it's probably worth looking into an existing framework that will manage it for you.
I use liquibase and have integrated into my build using the maven plugin. Worth checking out!
Just as you proposed, add a table where you store the current version of the database schema. Then you only have to apply the changes between your last schema update and the new release, and set the new version number accordingly. I've done this to update our production database about 300 times, it just works.
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 am building a personal site, for a blog I wish to use WordPress and for a wiki i will use
wikia. Is it possible that i use the same database for storing articles from both frontends (WordPress and wiki). If yes can i some how populate articles from my wiki to the blog, under a specific category.
EDIT-- By two different sites I mean two different frontends, hosted at different subdomains.
At installation time, both WordPress and Wikka allow you to prefix their tables with different names to prevent naming collisions. So yes it is possible to allow both applications to share the same database.
We have plenty of customers on our shared hosting environment who do this without any issues.
In answer to your second question, you may be in for a bit of custom code to do that.
Why not, its possible, just take care from any tables names conflict between both tables, you may need to edit some tables names.
And about populating one from another, i think you will need to edit its code some how to let it understand the new tables.
A host will put multiple clients on the same database server, so yes.
If you control the database and the apps, then you could code them to "share info"
They can quite happily use the same database. Depending on the RDBMS you are using, you may want to create an additional Database or user instance for each site.
With SQL Server you can create an additional database, or you can add a schema for each site. for Oracle you can create a user specific to each site.
To return data from one place to another, simply build a view which is accessible to each schema. You will need to set privileges on the source database to do this, but that's pretty straightforward.
The short answer is YES.
However, you will need to watch out for database object naming conflicts.
Also, when you say 'two different sites' do you mean 2 different sites? Or just different 'frontends' within the same site? If it just different front apps running in the same website, then you will also have to make sure you won't have any configuration conflicts.
I'm not really sure what your aim is. Is your intention simply to share data between Wordpress and Wikia?
You should not store two unrelated schemas in one database. It's just asking for collisions. Both Wikia and Wordpress maintain their own schemas: they may name different functional database objects the same.
If you want to share data between the two databases, you can set up triggers and views to move data from one to the other without them being in the same database.
Most questions about tenancy are centered around multi-tenancy database design issues. I want to know about single tenancy but multiple applications. The software I'm developing allows for a single user to create, from a single code base, multiple applications(I call them "sections"):
user could create a blog inside domain.com/application-blog1, another blog on domain.com/application-blog2.
I've already decided for a single database for everything But I am undecided whether or not I should use multiple tables for different application instances or the same table, maybe with a "sectionId" field to distinguish between them.
I'm using mysql and myisam tables. Could storing everything inside the same table lead to locking issues in the case of having many application instances running?
What's your experience on the subject?
I don't think people will typically use multiple tables in the same database. If you have multiple instances of the same application, you often have separate databases - typically only if new instances are created administratively, rather than through end-user actions. In this case, you'ld put the name of the database into a configuration file, and have the software connect to the right database.
In your case, I would go for the single-schema single-database approach, using sectionIds. This really is the same as multi-tenancy, perhaps minus the need to do access control.
You will of course have locking across concurrent transactions. However, this should never cause problems, since transactions for different sections won't operate on records in a conflicting manner (except when new sections are created - you'll probably have another table telling you what sections you have).