I am new to Dataverse, moving from the SQL Server world, and just created my first Dataverse table (Standard table). Upon creation, the table has lots of what I assume are automatically-added columns? These include "Owner", "Status", "Version Number". I come from the SQL Server background where new tables come "empty", with no columns. I do not think I need these automatically-added columns (this is just going to be a small log table that holds datetime, action, etc. columns).
Would it break anything if these automatically-added columns were deleted? Also, if anyone could provide information about why these columns are included, that would help. I have researched these questions online, but found very little. Thank you in advance.
They are standard, out of the box attributes that you can't remove.
You can change the Ownership within the Table Type to "Organization" when creating the table to remove the Owner however the rest are created as part of every table.
There is some high level detail on the docs
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powerapps/maker/data-platform/entity-overview
Dataverse (earlier called as Common Data service) is Dynamics CRM under the hood. It’s a SaaS model CRM online software comes with some basic fundamental components.
When you create a table (entity) it comes with columns (attributes), relationships, views, forms, dashboards, etc.
The UCI model driven app can be made quickly to include these components with all CRUD operations without any code by doing simple configuration and customization.
To support these barebone functionalities - the necessary attributes like name, currency, statecode, statuscode, createdby, createdon, modifiedby, modifiedon and security implication fields like owner, owning business unit, owning team and change tracking & concurrency fields like row version, etc will be created.
You can keep them aside as they are part of platform and do your customization as you need.
Related
I've learning ASP.Net and Entity Framework 4 by a practical example. To trial this, I'm using the example of User sending in devices for Repair. They create an account online, add in a set of Details (address, phone, fax etc), and create the return form (RMA) online.
The concept I am struggling with, is assigning Details to the Returns. A Return has a set of Details, one for contact, delivery and billing. These can be foreign keys to the Detail table, as shown below.
The problem is, that if a User edits their Details online, it will update the Details used on the Return. This is not the desired behaviour. The Return should uses the Details which were available at the time it was created.
The question is, how do you make the entity framework create a new Detail object, instead of updating the existing one. That is if the user updates Detail 23 with a new postcode, Detail 23 is not changed, instead a new Detail is created (i.e. 45). Detail 23 is removed from the User, and the new Detail 45 is added to the User. Whilst an existing RMA using Detail 23 is unaffected, meanings if you query the RMA you get the details which were supplied at the time it was created.
If on reading this question, you think the concept is flawed, and instead the DB should be designed differently (i.e. copying Detail data to columns in RMA table, or adding in a form of composite key to Detail table to create a history of revisions). I'm happy to listen to those wise words as well.
If you have complex data editing rules that are outside of the realm of basic CRUD, then you essentially have two choices with Entity Framework.
Give up on simple data binding and build your special handling into a business rule layer that sits between your GUI and your data layer (EF).
Give up the simplicity of a thin EF layer and put your special data handling rules into stored procedures and then set the CRUD procedures in your EF model to the stored procs you've defined.
Either way, you are making a compromise because no ORM, EF or otherise, can accomodate both "codeless" databinding and non-trivial CRUD processing. Pick the approach that suits your project and perferences the best. Some people can't live without databinding, some can't live with it. Some love stored procs and others loath them.
I've begun investigating Microsoft Lightswitch 2011 as a possible solution for developing quick "admin" apps for updating various databases - primarily those containing lookup tables or configuration data for internal corporate websites or applications.
I have a website that was developed using ASP.NET MVC. EF Code First was used in building out the data layer. Some of the relationships are many-to-many which EF CF handles by creating a join table with just two fields containing the primary keys of the two tables involved in the relationship. The primary key of the join table is combination of the two fields. For example, a document entity can have many categories and a category can consist of many documents. Three tables get created: Documents, Categories, and DocumentCategories. DocumentCategories only has two columns: DocumentID and CategoryID.
When this database is attached to Lightswitch as an external database, and a master-detail screen is created for the Documents table (and showing the related Categories), data can be deleted from and added to the related table (the join table) but not modified.
Investigation revealed that Lightswitch requires a join table in a many-to-many relationship to have its own primary key that is not a concatenation of the keys of the related tables. In other words the table must be of the format: DocumentCategoryID, DocumentID, CategoryID. If the join table is structured that way, it becomes possible to update the entries in the related table.
I know that I can work-around this by not updating records and simply deleting and re-adding them. That's not a big deal since 1) Lightswitch makes that easy, and 2) there's usually not wholesale changes in the related data. It goes against my sensibilities though of "what's right".
So at the risk of providing fodder for all the Microsoft tool haters, 1) is this just a case of Microsoft making a mistake and not being consistent or is there some other force at work here, and 2) is there a way to "fix" this without having to rework my ASP.NET MVC, EF CF app and changing the database structure?
1) LightSwitch works. Yes there are 'haters' but then there were haters when nail guns came out ( http://jhurst.blogspot.com/2011/01/nail-gun-or-hand-nail-your-roof-which.html ) The end user who is paying for our services will demand that we use tools that can reduce costs by 90%+
2) Using WCF RIA Services allows you to place a layer between whatever you have going on in your data layer and LightSwitch (see: http://lightswitchhelpwebsite.com/Blog/tabid/61/tagid/21/WCF-RIA-Service.aspx ) Only use the 'data source wizard' when it works for you. If it gives you any problems then a WCF RIA Service, that will only take you 5 minutes to code up, will resolve any situation because you are able to drop into procedural code to handle any transform you need.
Designing a new application in asp.net 4 I have to make a decision how to use a MS SQL Membership API along with my own data in the MS SQL data base. Firstly I need to store and access user profile data in more flexible manner then the Profile provider supports. Secondly I would like to link other user related information (e.g. Orders).
No matter where you store your aspnetdb tables (in the separate data base or in the same data base with your data), the problem stays how to keep your data synchronized.
After a research I see the following relevant options:
1. Foreign key UserId from asp_Users (suggested in this tutorial).
2. No foreign key - use transactions (suggested here).
3. No foreign key - use customized AccountController (whatever it is, suggested here).
4. Additional table which links Membership UserId (uid) with custom UserId (int).
5. ...
On the one hand I like the first solution as it is quite straightforward and is suggested in an official asp.net tutorial.
On the other hand opponents note quite reasonably that using foreign keys breaks the general idea of providers which are supposed to help separating concerns and to be interchangeable. But unfortunately they do not go much into implementation details so it is not really easy to estimate those suggestions in terms of relevance and ease of implementation.
So what is the best option to approach this? Furthermore how would the implementation look like? Would it be enough to use just additional ADO.NET or LINQ etc code or is it worth implementing a custom Membership and/or Profile Provider?
Thank you in advance.
The first is the simpliest approach. Add the GUID of the user as a foreignkey in the related tables (f.e. Ordered_by). I don't see where it breaks separating concerns. If you want to keep the order-record in database, you also have to keep the user who has ordered, that makes perfectly sense.
I have used option 4 successfully in my current application. I've created a table aspnet_UserID with idUser int as primary-key and fiUser(the GUID of the aspnet_Users) as foreign-key. Here is the model:
(Note: User is the standard aspnet_Users table created via aspnet_regsql.exe and aspnet_UserId is my custom table that maps every Guid with my int-ID)
Now i'm storing only my idUser as FK in all related tables (like in your Order-Table). That has the advantage of less storage and more readable UserID's(i could never remember a GUID). Maybe it's somewhat more separated with this "wrapper-table" but that was not my main intention.
You can change the delete-rule on your foreignkeys if you want to control the behavior. Set it to Cascade if you f.e. want to delete all orders that were ordered by the user you're deleting or set it to no Action if you want to keep this order.
I can't suggest any alternatives for the Profile question because you haven't mentioned what you mean with "need to store and access user profile data in more flexible manner then the Profile provider supports".
You should consider writing your own custom membership provider that uses the tables/data as per your need (instead of using ASP.NET provided schema).
See this MSDn sample (schema, code) for writing a custom provider - this sample uses OLEDB to access database. Yet another sample is here - it uses active directory as a store.
I want to use ASP.NET Dynamic Data for my next project, but there is a problem a can't manage to solve. In the database we manage authorization on a per-row basis. For example no user is permitted to see all rows of the Contracts table. So there is a Many to Many Relationship between Contracts and Users. So everytime Dynamic Data performs a Select to show all Contracts it has to look into the ContractUsers junction table to see what contracts the current user is permitted to see (filtered by UserID which will be stored in a session variable). Of course these junction tables should be invisible to the users.
By default Dynamic Data returns all rows of a table, so is it possible to customize this behaviour for every query the user performs?
I want to use Dynamic Data together with LINQ to SQL but if this task would much easier to accomplish using Entity Framework I would look into that too.
Thanks for your help and time.
Implementing such a solution in Dynamic Data it will probably require the creation of a custom Entity Template; not really easy but once done it will not require the creation of custom pages just the editing of the page templates.
I think it will be really usefull to check the excellent work on DD done by S.J.Naughton and presented on his blog.
Greetings, F.
You should not use dynamic data because you need full control over querying and manually write all linq queries to add your data level security. If you still insist on dynamic data be aware that you will still write most of pages yourselves and you will only use dynamic templates. You will have to manually define ever data source and correctly pass where condition to filter results based on logged user.
In addition linq-to-sql is not able to hide junction table and entity framework is able to do that only if junction table contains just two FKs for many-to-many relation. If this table contains any other column you want to use in the application you will have to map it as any other entity and dynamic data will show it as an entity.
Dynamic data are technology for quick creation of simple application where you need to provide access to database through web interface but what you describe is not a simple scenario. You need per record authorization which can differ among entity types.
I am planning to create a website using ASP.NET and SQL Server. However, my plan for the database design leaves me wondering if there is a better way.
The website will serve as a repository of information for various users. I figure I would have two databases, a Membership and Profile database.
The profile database would contain user data for all users, where each user may have ~20 tables. I would create the tables when the user account is created and generate a key used to name the tables. The tables are not directly related.
For Example a set of tables for two different users could look like:
User1 Tables - TransactionTable_Key1, AssetTable_Key1, ResearchTable_Key1 ....;
User2 Tables - TransactionTable_Key2, AssetTable_Key2, ResearchTable_Key2 ....;
The Key1, Key2 etc.. values would be retrieved based on the MembershipID data when the account was created. This could result in a very large number of tables over time. I'm not sure if this will limit scalability by setting up the database in this way. Any recommendations?
Edit: I should mention that some of these tables would contain 20k+ rows.
Realistically it sounds like you only really need one database for this.
From the way you worded your question, it sounds like you're trying to dynamically create tables for users as they create accounts. I wouldn't recommend this method.
What you want to do is create a master table that contains a primary key for each individual user. I'm assuming this is the Membership table. Then create the ~20 tables that you need for the profiles of these members. Every record, no matter the number of users that you have, will go into these tables. These 20 tables would need to have a foreign key pointing to the unique identifier of the Membership table.
When you want to query a Member for their user information, just select from the tables where the membership table's primary Id matches the foreign key in the profile tables.
This would result in only a few tables in the end and is easily maintainable and follows better database design.
Your ORM layer (EF, LINQ, DAL code) will hate having to deal with one set of tables per tenant. It is much better to have either one set of tables for all tenant in a single database, or a separate database per tenant. The later is only better if schema upgrade has to be vetted by tenant (like Salesforce.com has). If you can afford to upgrade all tenant to a new schema at once then there is no reason for database per tenant.
When you design a schema that hold multiple tenant the important things to remember are
don't use heaps, all tables must be clustered index
add the tenant ID as the leftmost key to every clustered
add the tenant ID as the leftmost key to every non-clustered index too
add the Left.tenantID = right.tenantID predicate to every join
add the table.TenantID = #currentTenantID to every query
These are fairly simple rules and if you obey them (with no exceptions) you will get a perfect partitioning per tenant of every query (no query will ever ever scan rows in a range of a different tenant) so you eliminate contention between tenants. To be more through, you can disable lock escalation to make sure no tenant escalates to block every other tenant.
This design also lends itself to table partitioning and to sharing the database for scale-out.
You definitely don't want to create a set of tables for each user, and you would want these only in one database. Even with SQL Server 2008's large capacity for tables (note really total objects in database), it would quickly become unmanageable. Your best bet is to use 20 tables, and separate them via a column into user areas. You might consider partitioning the tables by this user value, but that should be tested for performance reasons too.
Yes, since the tables only contain id, key, and value, why not make one single table?
Have the columns:
id, user ID, key, value
Put an Index on the user ID field.
A key idea behind a relational database is that the table structure does not change. You create a solid set of tables, and these are the "bones" of your application.
Cheers,
Daniel
Neal,
The solution really depends on your requirement. If security and data access are concern and you have only a handful of users, you can set up a different db for each user with access for him set to only his/her database.
Other wise, what Daniel Williams suggested is a good alternative where you have one DB and tables laid out with a indexed column partitioning the users data rows.
It's hard to tell from the summary, but it looks like you are designing for dynamic attribution by user. This design approach is called EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value) and consists of a simple base collection key (UserID, SiteID, ProductID...) and then rows consisting of name/value pairs. In a more complex version, categories are sometimes added as "super columns" to the tuple/row and provide sub-groupings for a set of name/value pairs.
Designing in this way moves responsibility for data type integrity, relational integrity and tuple integrity to the application layer.
The risk with doing this in a relational system involves the breaking of the tuple or row into a set of rows. Updates, deletes, missing values and the definition of a tuple are no longer easily accessible through human interaction. As your application evolves and the definition of a tuple changes, it becomes almost impossible to tell if a name/value pair is missing because it's part of an earlier-version tuple or because it was unintentionally deleted. Ad-hoc research as well becomes harder to manage as business analysts must keep an understanding of the virtual structure either in their heads or in documentation provided.
If you are looking to implement an EAV model, I would suggest you look at a non-relational solution (nosql) like MongoDB or CouchDB. These stores allow a developer to save and retrieve "documents" or json-formatted messages that are essentially made up of a collection of name/value pairs and can look very much like a serialized object. The advantage here is that you can store dynamic attribution without breaking your tuple. You always know that you have a complete tuple because you can store and retrieve it as a single "blob" of information that can be serialized and deserialized at-will. You can also update single attributes within the tuple, if that's a concern.
MongoDB also provides some database-like features such as multiple-attribute indexes, a query engine that is robust in comparison to other similar non-relational offerings and a sharding solution that is much less trouble than trying to do it with MySQL.
I hope this helps.