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.
Related
We have a 3gb file of data from our propriartary CRM system which is using SQL as a database.
The CRM is not meeting our needs and we are thinking about moving to Microsoft access and building our own system from the start.
We were wondering if it is possible to easily migrate the SQL database into access?
Thanks for your time.
First of all, it has been a long time since I've had to use MS-Access (thankfully) but I'm not sure Access is suitable for databases of that size. In my opinion, it's best suited to small, desktop-type applications with few concurrent users.
To answer your question, I believe Access offers a data import feature(see under the External Data ribbon in 2013) - though I'd suspect it might balk at the idea of 3GB of data. Edit: Actually this link suggests the max databsae size is 2GB
What might be more useful however, is its Linked Table feature. If I remember correctly this allows you to access data stored in SQL Server (or a similar RDBMS) which is more suited to large volumes of data through an Access front end - complete with pre-canned forms, queries, reports etc..
It is possible and fairly straight forward to move all of your data tables from SQL Server to Access; however, SQL Server is a much more robust database engine than Access. I would highly recommend against that. I have however had very good success using Access (ADP project files) as a front for the interface and using SQL Server as the database back-end for simple to moderate complexity interfaces. If you are not getting the performance you desire from your SQL Server, you might want to consider query performance tuning and looking into memory and hardware upgrades first. I think you will get better and faster results from doing that.
The simple solution would be to “link” Access to SQL server. That way you continue to use a robust data engine, but are free to use all the reporting and coding features of Access.
In this setup then Access simply becomes a “front end” to the existing SQL database.
And you do NOT want to use an ADP project in Access since they are depreciated.
The process is thus to create a blank standard database, and then use linked tables to SQL server. This will not only eliminate the need to import data (which is likely changing all the time).
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
I'm currently developing a service for an App with WCF. I want to host this data on windows-azure and it should host data from differed users. I'm searching for the right design of my database. In my opinion there are only two differed possibilities:
Create a new database for every customer
Store a customer-id to every table (or the main table when every table is connected via entities)
The first approach has very good speed and isolating, but it's very expansive on windows azure (or am I understanding something of the azure pricing wrong?). Also I don't know how to configure a WCF- Service that way, that it always use another database.
The second approach is low on speed and the isolating is poor. But it's easy to implement and cheaper.
Now to my question:
Is there any other way to get high isolation of data and also easy integration in a WCF- service using azure?
What design should I use and why?
You have two additional options: build multiple schema containers within a database (see my blog post about this technique), or even better use SQL Database Federations (you can use my open-source project called Enzo SQL Shard to access federations). The links I am providing give you access to other options as well.
In the end it's a rather complex decision that involves a tradeoff of performance, security and manageability. I usually recommend Federations, even if it has its own set of limitations, because it is a flexible multitenant option for the cloud with the option to filter data automatically. Check out the open source project - you will see how to implement good separation of customer of data independently of the physical storage.
I've currently got a "Web" edition SQL Azure server with on database on it. I want to put another database on there but am unsure how the costing works. Will I need to pay the £9.99 per database or database server?
Does it make more sense just to set up a couple of different schemas in my existing database to try and reduce costs?
You pay per database. Creating schemas may make sense if cost is your concern. I have seen this done multiple times. However keep in mind that a few SQL Server/Azure features are schema independent. For example user-defined statistics and roles are schema independent. So as long as you don't use these features you should be good with a schema-based separation.
SQL Server 2008 database design problem.
I'm defining the architecture for a service where site users would manage a large volume of data on multiple websites that they own (100MB average, 1GB maximum per site). I am considering whether to split the databases up such that the core site management tables (users, payments, contact details, login details, products etc) are held in one database, and the database relating to the customer's own websites is held in a separate database.
I am seeing a possible gain in that I can distribute the hardware architecture to provide more meat to the heavy lifting done in the websites database leaving the site management database in a more appropriate area. But I'm also conscious of losing the ability to directly relate the sites to the customers through a Foreign key (as far as I know this can't be done cross database?).
So, the question is two fold - in general terms should data in this sort of scenario be split out into multiple databases, or should it all be held in a single database?
If it is split into multiple, is there a recommended way to protect the integrity and security of the system at the database layer to ensure that there is a strong relationship between the two?
Thanks for your help.
This question and thus my answer may be close to the gray line of subjective, but at the least I think it would be common practice to separate out the 'admin' tables into their own db for what it sounds like you're doing. If you can tie a client to a specific server and db instance then by having separate db instances, it opens up some easy paths for adding servers to add clients. A single db would require you to monkey with various clustering approaches if you got too big.
[edit]Building in the idea early that each client gets it's own DB also just sets the tone for how you develop when it is easy to make structural and organizational changes. Discovering 2 yrs from now you need to do it will become a lot more painful. I've worked with split dbs plenty of times in the past and it really isn't hard to deal with as long as you can establish some idea of what the context is. Here it sounds like you already have the idea that the client is the context.
Just my two cents, like I said, you could be close to subjective on this one.
Single Database Pros
One database to maintain. One database to rule them all, and in the darkness - bind them...
One connection string
Can use Clustering
Separate Database per Customer Pros
Support for customization on per customer basis
Security: No chance of customers seeing each others data
Conclusion
The separate database approach would be valid if you plan to support per customer customization. I don't see the value if otherwise.
You can use link to connect the databases.
Your architecture is smart.
If you can't use a link, you can always replicate critical data to the website database from the users database in a read only mode.
concerning security - The best way is to have a service layer between ASP (or other web lang) and the database - so your databases will be pretty much isolated.
If you expect to have to split the databases across different hardware in the future because of heavy load, I'd say split it now. You can use replication to push copies of some of the tables from the main database to the site management databases. For now, you can run both databases on the same instance of SQL Server and later on, when you need to, you can move some of the databases to a separate machine as your volume grows.
Imagine we have infinitely fast computers, would you split your databases? Of course not. The only reason why we split them is to make it easy for us to scale out at some point. You don't really have any choice here, 100MB-1000MB per client is huge.