Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase

Schemas vs Several Databases Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:49 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:38 AM
Points: 120, Visits: 491
Hi Folks,

I would like to discuss the following design issue:
I'm working in a Project in which several systems are involved, like SAS Marketing Automation and Microsoft Dynamics 2011. There is a database to hold the marketing campaigns information, other to stores the CRM data and a Data Hub to store and exchange general data across the systems.
At the beginning I created a database (The Data Hub) to store the data coming from an external provider. The other systems have their own databases and also read data stored in the Data Hub. Then I created new schemas in the Data Hub to stored relevant data from the other systems, like marketing lists, campaigns and so own.
Now I have to load data into the CRM, so I created a separated Staging DB to prepare the data before load them in the CRM database.
My new requirements are twofold:
- Store changes made in the CRM by the operators back in the Data Hub.
- Send the current data to the external provider.
My first try was to build new schemas to manage the permissions and so on, but I don´t know exactly which strategy should I follow.
Why is your opinion about this issue?
I know I should consider another factors like maintenance, backups, security, server size, etc.
Any comment would be appreciated.


Paul Hernández
http://hernandezpaul.wordpress.com/
https://twitter.com/paul_eng
Post #1445807
Posted Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:13 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, October 17, 2014 6:21 PM
Points: 136, Visits: 137
In my environment there is a support fee for each database, so this combination of database using schemas to separate them is a huge cost saving for the applications.

It also reduces the number of databases in our clustered instances.
Post #1446522
Posted Friday, April 26, 2013 1:29 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:38 AM
Points: 120, Visits: 491
Hi Big Bro!
Thanks for your comment.

I found many good reasons for using schemas as logical containers like the ability to manipulate objects independently of users, and the reduce of administrative complexity, while the objects still work together where requiered.

I recommend this article to better clarify this topic: Importance of Database Schemas in SQL Server

The only significant problem that I've found at the moment is the size of the database file, but with a partioning strategy this issue could be overcome.

Kinde Regards,



Paul Hernández
http://hernandezpaul.wordpress.com/
https://twitter.com/paul_eng
Post #1446825
Posted Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:02 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:11 PM
Points: 7,920, Visits: 9,646
I guess that what you apparently want to use schemas for is what MS intended to provide by providing complete separation between the schema concept and the user concept. So yes, it's reasonable to use them that way.

However, there can be issues which may persuade to keep some schemas in separate databases. Putting data for which the full recovery model, frequent incremental backups and fairly frequent full backups is appropriate and data for which the simple recovery model and infrequent backups is appropriate into schmata in the same database is going to use extra storage (for unneccessary backups, unwanted data in log files), slow down recovery on service startup for data for which simple recovery is appropriate, probably introduce complications in administration as a result of attempts to alleviate the increase in storage requirements, and certainly increase teh performance load of backups and of logging. So, as usual, what's best for you depends on your data and what you are doing with it.


Tom
Post #1447926
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse