I'm creating a Microsoft SQL server that initially only served one client but am now looking to have many (Up to several thousand if things go well). The entire structure will be the same for each client with only the data within each table being client specific.
I am thinking of adding ClientID to almost all tables and referencing this in all functions (basically a where ClientID = #ClientID on every statement). Along with a Clients table that gains a new entry for every new client
The alternative being a create database [Client_Name] script that is fired whenever a new client joins the server to create another client specific database and all its associated structure and procedures.
Is there any advantage performance wise to either option?
The decision on how to structure such a database should not be made only on performance issues. In fact, that is probably the least of the issues. Some things to consider:
How will you manage updates to your application? Multiple databases can make this easier or harder.
Will individual clients have customizations? This favors multiple databases.
What are the security requirements for the data? This can go either way.
What are the replication and recovery requirements for the data? This would tend to be easier with one database, but not in all scenarios.
Will concurrent usage by different clients interfere with each other?
Will clients be responsible for managing their own data or is this part of your offering?
Is any data shared among clients? How will you maintain common reference tables?
In general, performance is going to be better with a single database (think half-filled data pages occupying memory). Maintenance and development will be easier with a single database (managing multiple client databases is cumbersome). But actual requirements on the application should be driving such a decision.
I'm designing a system that checks a given website for any security vulnerabilities. The system includes a client (firefox plugin) and a server. The server does all the scanning while the client just relays that info to the user. If a website is dangerous, it is blacklisted; otherwise whitelisted.
The system must hypothetically be able to handle several thousands of requests and updates to the database simultaneously.
Although the database is expected to have a very simple structure, I am still considering using NoSQL because my understanding is that it can handle a greater amount of queries. Is this true? Which db technology is better suited for my system?
I suggest a NoSQL database.
In fact I've been working with two databases in the last weeks, and searching on internet I found the differences between a NoSQL an a SQL database.
Pratically, you should use a NoSQL db if you have a lot of data to query. Remind that it's not sure the data recovery in case of a db disaster.
Instead, use a SQL database if your data MUST be permanent, and you can't lose it. But query times will be longer, so it's not suggested if you have tons of data.
I understood, from what you wrote, that you need lot of queries and you "can lose" the data (if you lose a website of the list, you'll just need to re-check it, right?).
So I suggest you to go for a NoSQL db (I worked with MongoDb, it is the most famous worl-wide).
If you consider NoSQL Databases you have to analyze your data to get the right Database.
For your use case I think you should look at document databases (like MongoDB) or, if you want really high performance, a key-value Database like Redis or Riak.
With Key-Value databases you can only use the key to find the data you want.
With document databases you still have some kind of querys to find the data.
For further information look at: http://nosql-database.org/
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 am working on a database for a monitoring application, and I got all the business logic sorted out. It's all well and good, but one of the requirements is that the monitoring data is to be completely stand-alone.
I'm using a local database on my web-server to do some event handling and caching notifications. Since there is one event row per system on my monitor database, it's easy to just get the id and query the monitoring data if needed, and since this is something only my web server uses, integrity can be enforced externally. Querying is not an issue either, as all the relationships are one-to-one so it's very straight forward.
My problem comes with user administration. My original plan had it on yet another database (to meet the requirement of leaving the monitoring database alone), but I don't think I was thinking straight when I thought of that. I can get all the ids of the systems a user has access to easily enough, but how then can I efficiently pass that to a query on the other database? Is there a solution for this? Making a chain of ors seems like an ugly and buggy solution.
I assume this kind of problem isn't that uncommon? What do most developers do when they have to integrate different database servers? In any case, I am leaning towards just talking my employer into putting user administration data in the same database, but I want to know if this kind of thing can be done.
There are a few ways to accomplish what you are after:
Use concepts like linked servers (SQL Server - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188279.aspx)
Individual connection strings within your front end driving the database layer
Use things like replication to duplicate the data
Also, the concept of multiple databases on a single database server instance seems like it would not be violating your business requirements, and I investigate that as a starting point, with the details you have given.
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.