i have a table in an access database
this access database is used on a regular basis, basically from 9-5
someone else has a copy of this exact table. sometimes records are added, sometimes deleted, and sometimes data within the records is updated.
i need to update the access database table with the offsite table every hour or so. what is the best algorithm of updating the data? there are about 5000 records.
would it severely lock up the table for a few seconds every hour?
i would like to publicly apologize for my rude comment to david fenton
My impression is that this question ties together pieces you've been exploring with your previous questions:
a file "listener" to detect the presence of a new file and do something with it when found
list files with some extension in a folder
DoCmd.TransferText to pull file data into your database
Insert, Update, Delete records in a table based on an imported set of records
Maybe it's time to give us a more detailed picture of what you're dealing with.
Tony asked if both sites are on the same WAN (Wide Area Network). You replied they are on Windows. Elsewhere you said you're using a network. Please tell us about the network.
I'm still unsure whether you need a one-way or two-way data exchange. You've talked about importing changes from the remote table into the local master table. Do you need to do the same type of operation at the remote site: import changes made to the table at the master site?
Tell us what needs to happen regarding the issue James raised. Can local and remote users ever edit the same record? If they can, how will you resolve the conflict? Similarly, what should happen if a remote user updates a record and a local user deletes their copy of that record?
Based on what you've told us so far, this sounds like a real challenge for Access, made more challenging by the rate of record changes (5,000 per hour). I like the outline Kevin suggested. However your challenge will be more complicated since you also need to account for record deletions at both sites.
It seems like you may have to create something which duplicates Access' Replication feature. Maybe you should look at the Jet Replication Wiki to see if you can modify your design to take advantage of Replication. I can't help you there, and unfortunately you appear to have frustrated David Fenton who is a leading authority on Jet Replication.
If a few seconds performance is critical, you'd rather move to a better database engine (like Sqlite, MySQL, MS SQL server). If you want a single file, then Sqlite is the best for you. All these use by-single-record locks, so you can read and write simultaneously.
If you stay with access, you will probably have to implement a timer to update only a few records at a time.
Before you do anything else you need to establish the "rules" as far as collisions go.
If a row in the local copy is updated and the same row in the remote copy is updated which one is the "correct" version? Ditto for deletions, inserts are even more of a pain as you can have the "same" set of values but perhaps a different key.
After you have worked out how to handle each of these cases you can then go on to thinking about the implementation.
As other posters have suggested the way to completely avoid these issues is switch to SQLServer or any other "proper" database which can be updated over the network by all users and where concurrency issues are handled by the DBMS when the updates are applied.
Other users have already suggested switching to a server based database i.e. SQL server etc. I would echo this and say it is the best way to go however if you are stuck with access and have no choice then I would suggest you add a field (with an index) along the lines of “Last Updated”. You could then export all records that have been modified within a particular time frame. Export this file as a CSV, ship it over to the remote site and import it into the “master” access database. With a bit of scripting you could automate this process.
Related
I have a new idea and question about that I would like to ask you.
We have a CRM application on-premise / in house. We use that application kind of 24X7. We also do billing and payroll on the same CRM database which is OLTP and also same thing with SSRS reports.
It looks like whenever we do operation in front end which does inserts and updates to couple of entities at the same time, our application gets frozen until that process finishes. e.g. extracting payroll for 500 employees for their activities during last 2 weeks. Basically it summarize total working hours pulls that numbers from database and writes/updates that record where it says extract has been accomplished. so for 500 employees we are looking at around 40K-50K rows for Insert/Select/Update statements together.
Nobody can do anything while this process runs! We are considering the following options to take care of this issue.
Running this process in off-hours
OR make a copy of DB of Dyna. CRM and do this operations(extracting thousands of records and running multiple reports) on copy.
My questions are:
how to create first of all copy and where to create it (best practices)?
How to make it synchronize in real-time.
if we do select statement operation in copy DB than it's OK, but if we do any insert/update on copy how to reflect that on actual live db? , in short how to make sure both original and copy DB are synchronize to each other in real time.
I know I asked too many questions, but being SQL person, stepping into CRM team and providing suggestion, you know what I am trying to say.
Thanks folks for your any suggestion in advance.
Well to answer your question in regards to the live "copy" of a database a good solution is an alwayson availability group.
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/canitpro/2013/08/19/step-by-step-creating-a-sql-server-2012-alwayson-availability-group/
Though I dont think that is what you are going to want in this situation. Alwayson availability groups are typically for database instances that require very low failure time frames. For example: If the primary DB server goes down in the cluster it fails over to a secondary in a second or two at the most and the end users only notice a slight hiccup for a second.
What I think you would find better is to look at those insert statements that are hitting your database server and seeing why they are preventing you from pulling data. If they are truly locking the table maybe changing a large amount of your reads to "nolock" reads might help remedy your situation.
It would also be helpful to know what kind of resources you have allocated and also if you have proper indexing on the core tables for your DB. If you dont have proper indexing then a lot of the queries can take longer then normal causing the locking your seeing.
Finally I would recommend table partitioning if the tables you are pulling against are to large. This can help with a lot of disk speed issues potentially and also help optimize your querys if you partition by time segment (i.e. make a new partition every X months so when a query pulls from one time segment they only pull from that one data file).
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190787.aspx
I would say you need to focus on efficiency more then a "copy database" as your volumes arent very high to be needing anything like that from the sounds of it. I currently have a sql server transaction database running with 10 million+ inserts on it a day and I still have live reports hit against it. You just need the resources and proper indexing to accommodate.
I am working on Asp.Net MVC web application, back-end is SQL Server 2012.
This application will provide billing, accounting, and inventory management. The user will create an account by signup. just like http://www.quickbooks.in. Each user will create some masters and various transactions. There is no limit, user can make unlimited records in the database.
I want to keep stable database performance, after heavy data load. I am maintaining proper indexing and primary keys in it, but there would be a heavy load on the database, per user.
So, should I create a separate database for each user, or should maintain one database with UserID. Add UserID in each table and making a partition based on UserID?
I am not an expert in SQL Server, so please provide suggestions with clear specifications.
Please inform me if there is any lack of information.
A DB per user is what happens when customers need to be able pack up and leave taking the actual database with them. Think of a self hosted wordpress website. Or if there are incredible risks to one user accidentally seeing another user's data, so it's safer to rely on the servers security model than to rely on remembering to add the UserId filter to all your queries. I can't imagine a scenario like that, but who knows-- maybe if the privacy laws allowed for jail time, I would rather data partitioned by security rules rather than carefully writing WHERE clauses.
If you did do user-per-database, creating a new user will be 10x more effort. While INSERT, UPDATE and so on stay the same from version to version, with each upgrade the syntax for database, user creation, permission granting and so on will evolve enough to break those scripts each SQL version upgrade.
Also, this will multiply your migration headaches by the number of users. Let's say you have 5000 users and you need to add some new columns, change a columns data type, update a trigger, and so on. Instead of needing to run that change script 1x, you need to run it 5000 times.
Per user Dbs also probably wastes disk space. Each of those databases is going to have a transaction log, sitting idle taking up the minimum log space.
As for load, if collectively your 5000 users are doing 1 billion inserts, updates and so on per day, my intuition tells me that it's going to be faster on one database, unless there is some sort of contension issue (everyone reading and writing to the same table at the same time and the same pages of the same table). Each database has machine resources (probably threads and memory) per database doing housekeeping, so these extra DBs can't be free.
Anyhow, the best thing to do is to simulate the two architectures and use a random data generator to simulate load and see how they perform.
It's not an easy answer to give.
First, there is logical design to be considered. Then you have integrity, security, management and performance (in this very order).
A database is a logical unit of data, self contained. Ideally, you should be able to take a database, move it to another instance, probably change the connection strings and be running again.
All the constraints are database-level. No foreign keys can exist referencing some object outside the database.
So, try thinking in these terms first.
How would you reliably prevent one user messing up the other user's data? Keep in mind that it's just a matter of time before someone opens an excel sheet and fire up queries on the database bypassing your application. Row level security in SQL Server is something you don't want to deal with.
Multiple databases mean that all management tasks should be scripted out and executed on all databases. Yes, there is some overhead to it, but once you set it up it's just the matter of monitoring. If a database goes suspect, it's a single customer down, not all of them. You can even have different versions for different customes if each customer have it's own database. Additionally, if you roll an upgrade, you can do it per customer, so the inpact will be much less.
Performance is the least relevant factor here. Of course, it really depends on how many customers and how much data, but proper indexing will solve these issues. Scale-out is much easier with multiple databases.
BTW, partitioning, as you mentioned it, is never a performance booster, it's simply a management feature, allowing for faster loading and evicting of data from a table.
I'd probably put each customer in separate database, but it's up to you eventually to make a decision for yourself. Hope I've helped some with this.
I am developing a VB.Net application. That application might be working on a LAN. MS Access as a back end will be used. I have developed many single user applications, but don't know of multi user , LAN, manage DB etc. How do I make the program as Multi user on LAN. Data will be accessed at the same time. How to manage such things.
Please give me some help and Guidance.
Thanks
Your VB application does not care how many people run it.
Your database, with MS Access, has some serious issues with multiple users. Get away from it if you can. SQL Server has a free version called SQL Express. If you only plan on 2 people, you might be OK with Access for a while but be prepared to support it more.
That was all the easy stuff, now you have to think about how you are going to handle multiple users trying to access and update the same data (concurrency).
Imagine this, you are a user looking at employee record 1 and so is someone else. You change the birthday and save. The the other user changes thier suppervisor and saves. How do you know something changed? What do you do if something changed? These are questions I cannot answer for you, you must decide based on your situation.
There are 2 main types of concurrency, optimistic and pessimistic. See this link for a great explaination and discussion on them: optimistic-vs-pessimistic-locking
You can look at this on a table-by-table basis.
If a table is never updated, you dont have to worry about concurrency
If a table is rarely updated, like a table of states, you can decide if it is worth the extra effort to add concurrency.
Everything else, pretty much should have some type of concurrency.
Now, the million dollar question, how?
You will find as many ways to handle concurrency as you will find colors in the rainbow. Here are some of the ones I like:
Simple number that you increment with each save. Small and easy.
DateTime stamp - As long as you dont expect to ever have 2 people save the same record during the same second, this is easy. (I personally dont like it by it's self)
User Name - Pretty simple gives a little bit of an audit by knowing who last inserted/edited the record but doesn't handle an issue I have seen to often. Imagine the same senerio as above but you had 2 instances of record 1. Now you change the data again, maybe supervisor, and when you save, you overwrite the changes from your first save with those of the second save.
Guid - VB can create a guid, SQL Server can create a guid and so can Access. It is nice an unique and most important, you can create it on the client so you dont have to requery the database after you save the record to get a refreshed record.
Combination of these. I like 2 and 3 myself. Gives a mini audit and is unique to the user.
If you use a DataAdapter, by default, MS will assume concurrency checking means to compare EVERY field to make sure it did not change. This works, but is completely un-scaleable and should not be done.
All of this depends on the size of your application and how you see it being used. Definately do some more research before you settle on a decision.
There are a number of solutions here.
If I may suggest a drastic alternative, have you considered pairing the client running on the user's computer with a server component (through a web service)? A simpler alternative would be for the client to talk directly to a SQL Server (or other database) instance through the network?*
*I'm not a fan of having client side apps talk directly to the database. It will mean maintenance headaches in the future, but I
included it to give you options
.
I found this random example via Google so YMMV.
I have a requirement that in a SQL Server backed website which is essentially a large CRUD application, the user should be able to 'go back in time' and be able to export the data as it was at a given point in time.
My question is what is the best strategy for this problem? Is there a systematic approach I can take and apply it across all tables?
Depending on what exactly you need, this can be relatively easy or hell.
Easy: Make a history table for every table, copy data there pre update or post insert/update (i.e. new stuff is there too). Never delete from the original table, make logical deletes.
Hard: There is an fdb version counting up on every change, every data item is correlated to start and end. This requires very fancy primary key mangling.
Just add a little comment to previous answers. If you need to go back for all users you can use snapshots.
The simplest solution is to save a copy of each row whenever it changes. This can be done most easily with a trigger. Then your UI must provide search abilities to go back and find the data.
This does produce an explosion of data, which gets worse when tables are updated frequently, so the next step is usually some kind of data-based purge of older data.
An implementation you could look at is Team Foundation Server. It has the ability to perform historical queries (using the WIQL keyword ASOF). The backend is SQL Server, so there might be some clues there.
For compliance reasons, when I delete a user's personal information from the database in my current project, the relevant rows need to be really, irrecoverably deleted.
The database we are using is postgres 8.x,
Is there anything I can do, beyond running COMPACT/VACUUM regularly?
Thankfully, our backups will be held by others, and they are allowed to keep the deleted information.
"Irrecoverable deletion" is harder than it sounds, and extends beyond your database. For example, are you planning on going back to all previous instances of your database on tape/backup where this row also exists, and deleting it there too?
Consider a regular deletion and the periodic VACUUMing that you mentioned before.
To accomplish the "D" in ACID, relational databases use a transaction log type system for changes to the database. When a delete is made that delete is made to a memory copy of the data (buffer cache) and then written to a transaction log file in synchronous mode. If the database were to crash the transaction log would be replayed to bring the system back to the correct state. So a delete exists in multiple locations where it would have to be removed. Only at some later time is the record "deleted" from the actual data file on disk (and any indexes). This amount of time varies depending on the database.
Do you back up your database? - If Yes, make sure you delete it from Back ups too.
Is that because of security risk? In that case, I'd change the data in the row and then delete the row.
Perhaps I'm off on a tangent, but do you really want to delete users like that? Most identity & access management approaches recommend keeping users around but in a flagged-as-deleted state, in order not to lose auditing ability (what has this user been up to in the previous five years)?
Deleting user information might be needed for integrity compliance reasons, or for nefarious black-hat purposes. In neither case is there a deletion method which guarantees that no traces could be left of the user's existence, as has been noted in other posts.
Perhaps you should elaborate as to why such an irrevocable delete is desirable...?
This is not something that you can do on the software side. Its a hardware issue to really delete it you need to physically destroy the drive.
How about overwriting the record with random characters/dates/numbers etc?