We are going to be selling a service that will be hosted by us, and each client we host will have their own database, but there will be one centralized website. I currently have a blank database with the few things that a new client will need. What is the best way to copy this database so I can setup another client? I want to be able to do this from an .aspx page. Thanks in advance!
Update:
By .aspx page, I just meant that I need to be able to kick off the process from an .aspx page.
Update2:
We're running SQL Server 2008.
Update 3: Referencing Cade Roux's answer... Thanks for a great answer, but...
What is the reason for merging all of the databases into one, and then distinguishing clients based on an identifier in each table? Wouldn't this greatly complicate the architecture of the entire product? I would need to add these Client ID columns to practically every table, and the DAL would need to know which client data its looking for. With the current setup I have, I just switch out the connection string in the DAL, depending on which user is accessing the site. That way, after the connection string is set, I never need to worry about finding client specific data! How do these approaches compare (and should I add this as a separate question?
You have a few different options:
You can detach your empty database, then when a user signs up, copy that database and mount it under a unique name for them and map it to their account in your master database, say.
You can create a database from scratch using scripts and populate any base data either from an online template database or scripting the base data and map it to their account in your master database.
You should seriously consider going to a multi-tenant architecture where all users are in the same database (with most tables having CustomerID columns to segregate the data) if you are going to have more than a few dozen customers.
Regarding your notes about option 3 - it depends on your application. Multi-tenant can be difficult to retrofit. On the other hand, managing and upgrading hundreds of individual customer databases can be difficult in the long haul.
There are previous Stack Overflow questions regarding this:
What are the advantages of using a single database for EACH client?
One database or many?
I think I'll see about re-tagging them with multi-tenant-db or something. Anyhow, I think that this comes up as a consideration secondary to your answer about a particular tactic does show the importance of including details about your overall goals in strategy in every question on StackOverflow.
Depending on what database you're using, there are several approaches. The simplest is to ask your database software to generate SQL code for creating the database and include that with your software. Another would be to just script out in C#/VB the steps needed to recreate your empty database.
Why the need for .aspx page?
You don't say what db version you're using but in SQL2005-2008, you have the ability to "script database as" and then "create to" and have it port the sql to a query window. You could then work with that to create a stored procedure that can be called from your .aspx page.
SQL Server has a system database called 'model'. Any database objects (tables, views, stored procedures) that exist in the model are added to any new database created.
You could create your 'client database' schema as model, and any new database would have all the same tables...
But, if you need to change your database schema later, your best option is to write change scripts which are part of your code-behind file. Since changes to the 'model' database are not propagated to existing databases, the application needs to detect and upgrade the database schema as necessary.
Disadvantage to this approach: If you want a database which isn't a 'client database' then you would need to create the database, and then delete the 'client database' tables.
Related
I'm reading on hash table and data structure, and one question come to mind. Where is hash table implemented? Is it on server code or database?
The resource I've read seems to implement them on the server code, but isnt storing data the job of database? PS: I've havent get to a point of knowing non-sql database yet, maybe that's where my knowledge lack.
Many applications need to store some data internally, even if they're also using or updating data in a database at times. Often they'll even retrieve related data from a remote (across the network) database and have it available in RAM on the local machine for the application to access quickly.
Other times, an application may use a data structure such as a hash table to support some application behaviours that are not part of the business data model, and therefore don't belong in the database. For example, a GUI application might keep help strings to display when the mouse hovers over a widget/button/whatever - they might be stored in a hash table keyed on some GUI object identifier, screen region or whatever the GUI library finds useful to help it display the tooltips at the right time. Another application might keep a table of usernames and activity statistics that it generated by scraping some website - it might display them to the user on demand, or aggregate them or something, without ever saving them down to a database (historic data may be of no value, and it can scrape the website again).
In summary - non-trivial programs tend to use hash tables to provide quick access to the data they consult or manipulate, whether the programs are themselves databases, applications that do also use databases, or applications that run without any database support.
I am planning to make a software (ASP.NET 4.6.1 MVC with Entity Framework), which does a lot of reading from DB. Therefor I have one database, which contains all global information, projects etc. and now I am thinking to either bring all the content into the same DB but in different tables or to create a DB for each bigger group.
Now as there is a lot of reading going on, is it bad practise to have the connection information in the main db and then to connect to a different DB? Otherwise I would have the project information in the primary database and the content in a different table on the same DB.
Are there any notable delays to connect to a different DB to retrive the information?
If it's all your data, for your application, it should all go in the same database. Definitely use different tables. You should read up on entity design and normalization... and if you really need to do that, you may already be in over your head.
I'm currently developing an app where the users are first asked to create an account trough a website (ASP.NET) to use the app. For a special reason I need to automatically generate a database for each customer creating an account, on the hosted SQL Server. The databases for all the customers are the same.
I was thinking about doing like that: as I have the script for creating the database, I was thinking to insert it in stored procedure or a trigger that will be launched as soon as the user has fully created his account.
I don't really see other solutions, maybe somebody could give me some guidelines? Thanks in advance.
I think such a design has been shown to not scale. I'd recommend redesigning the schema to allow multiple customers in a single database.
Amazon does not such thing. Neither should you.
I agree duffymo on you would have scalability issues.
However there are situations where in you might prefer separate database as your multi-tenant data approach.
In my last project I had to adopt separate DB approach as business wanted complete isolation for each customer. It was a school administrative system and number of customer was not expected to grow in more than three digits in 5-10 years time.
So the solution I designed was, I used Entity Framework code first approach. Every school will have a unique school identifier which will be used to name the database uniquely for each school. The connection string was generated at runtime obviously. A connection factory was used to create the appropriate DataContext based on passed school identifier. The database is created on first usage if not exist. At the same time SQL script was executed to create db users during db creation if not exist.
If this approach sounds appealing I can share code snippet if that helps.
Our requirement is something like this.
We are building a multi-tenant website in ASP.NET MVC, and each customer should be able to create their own users as per predefined user roles.
We are thinking about to create a schema for few tables which would be common for customers. So customer can login to system according to their schema logins and we need not to alter any queries to serve all of them.
We are referring http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479086.aspx Shared Database, Separate Schemas.
Can someone suggest on following
1. After creating schema how to authorize user against a particular schema
2. Is this possible that without any changes in queries db can serve multi-tenants
Thanks in advance
Anil
After much research, I can say that, although it takes more development up front and more checks along the way, shared database and shared schema is the way to go. It puts a little bit of limits on how easily you can cater to a client's specific needs, but from my point of view SAAS isn't about catering to a single client's weird needs. It's about catering to the majority of clients. Not that it's a SAAS but take iPhone as an example. It was built to cater to the masses. Rather than focusing on doing everything it's built to be one-size fits all just by its simplicity. This doesn't help your case when it comes to authoriztion but it'll save you dev hours in the long run.
If you are asking this in the context of SQL Server authentication/authorization mechanism, i can asnwer this question with saying that every user has a default schema which helps query engine to find out required object in the database.
SQL Query Engine will look at the user's default schema first to find the required object (table). If it founds the object in user's schema then use it, otherwise goes to system default schema (dbo) to find it.
Check this article's How to Refer to Objects section to find out how it works. The article also has some information about security concepts related to schemas.
In the past, when I implemented my own authentication mechanisms I would have a user table with relationships to other tables in my application's MySQL database. However, now that I'm considering using ActiveDirectoryMembershipProvider, I see no way to create similar relationships between AD users and those tables.
What's the normal way to resolve this issue? Should I just accept the fact that someone could potentially insert records with user IDs that don't correspond to existing users? I don't realistically expect this to happen, but I'm used to ensuring integrity at the database level.
I think you'll have to give up on database referential integrity in this case. Just have your application code check for the existence of the Active Directory account before adding the record to the DB.
In theory, some user could go in manually and type a SQL INSERT statement which refers to an invalid AD account. But in practice, hopefully you aren't giving a bunch of users direct table access. If the application code is the only thing accessing the DB, the application code is validating the account before inserting the row, and that validation code is tested, then you should be OK.
Just to be safe, you could have a nightly batch process that validates all rows in your referencing table(s) against Active Directory. If it finds any inconsistency, it can send you an email. This won't prevent integrity violations, but at least it will let you know about them.
I don't know of anyway you could do this via MySQL. If you were using SQL server, you could write a trigger that would call a C# dll that would verify that they were an AD member. Then if they weren't you could block the insertion into the DB. You might be able to do something like this with MySQL, but my knowledge of MySQL is pretty slim.