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

name convention for archived or historical database Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:20 AM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:46 PM
Points: 1,776, Visits: 3,222
We have a department who has some legacy software databases no longer in use.
But they want to keep the data and database, and build cubes for historical data anyalysis.
Their department only has one SQL server with a couple of dbs on it.

My question is what usually is good practice to name those historical databases.

I just do not want to make as the original database name, but add some prefix or suffix to let people who work on this future know they are no longer production database, but just for historical records.

so what is recommendation for those name conventions for those databases?

Thanks,
Post #1608354
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:10 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:46 PM
Points: 35,218, Visits: 31,676
sqlfriends (8/28/2014)
We have a department who has some legacy software databases no longer in use.
But they want to keep the data and database, and build cubes for historical data anyalysis.
Their department only has one SQL server with a couple of dbs on it.

My question is what usually is good practice to name those historical databases.

I just do not want to make as the original database name, but add some prefix or suffix to let people who work on this future know they are no longer production database, but just for historical records.

so what is recommendation for those name conventions for those databases?

Thanks,


I wouldn't change the original database. It could break a lot of the code. Build a separate instance and put it there as it is or, better yet, create a new server for the new stuff and don't touch the old stuff at all.


--Jeff Moden
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #1608370
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:20 PM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:46 PM
Points: 1,776, Visits: 3,222
Thanks, Jeff.

These databases no longer has front end, their new versions are already upgraded to something new and have diffrent database names.

These are only kept for data analysis purpose, we will build SSAS cubes from them.

The reason I thought to rename to something new - just add a suffix for exampel, is for DBAs or whoever manages the server, they later know these are no longer production databases, but just kept for historical records and for analysis purpose.
They are all actually small databases for some old applications.
Currently we don't have budget to buy another server for this purpose. We will use the existing server that only has two produciton databases.


Thanks
Post #1608377
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:55 PM This worked for the OP Answer marked as solution


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:46 PM
Points: 35,218, Visits: 31,676
sqlfriends (8/28/2014)
Thanks, Jeff.

These databases no longer has front end, their new versions are already upgraded to something new and have diffrent database names.

These are only kept for data analysis purpose, we will build SSAS cubes from them.

The reason I thought to rename to something new - just add a suffix for exampel, is for DBAs or whoever manages the server, they later know these are no longer production databases, but just kept for historical records and for analysis purpose.
They are all actually small databases for some old applications.
Currently we don't have budget to buy another server for this purpose. We will use the existing server that only has two produciton databases.


Thanks


If the code in the databases has the mistake of 3 or 4 part naming in it, such name changes will break the database code. That could, of course, be repaired as you come upon it.

I use an _Archive suffix on archive databases but that's not what this is. This is a deactiviation and I typically add an _OLD_YYYYMMDD suffix where the YYYYMMDD is the date that the database was officially declared to be "dead".


--Jeff Moden
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #1608389
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:14 PM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:49 AM
Points: 1,914, Visits: 5,275
Quick thought, my preferred approach would be a named SQL Server instance, normally SERVERNAME_OLD. Kind of in line with Jeff's suggestion. Reason being that normally there are more than one database "related" being retired.
Post #1608391
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:36 PM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:46 PM
Points: 1,776, Visits: 3,222
But sometimes those databases need to work with different SQL server versions.
For example some retired db is at version 2000 and only works with 2000, some with 2005 etc.
So only one instance cannot meet the requirment.
Post #1608401
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:49 PM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:04 PM
Points: 2,102, Visits: 3,164
I use "__Archive" (double underscore) for those tables.

I also maintain its structure to match the original table. That is, if the main table changes, I make the same changes in the archive table. Basically, I want a SELECT * UNION ALL between the two tables to always work.


SQL DBA,SQL Server MVP('07, '08, '09)

"We came in spastic, Like tameless horses /
We left in plastic, As numbered corpses / ...
Remember Charlie, Remember Baker /
They left their childhood On every acre /
And who was wrong? And who was right? /
It didn't matter in the thick of the fight." : the inimitable Mr. Billy Joel, about the Vietnam War
Post #1608407
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:54 PM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:49 AM
Points: 1,914, Visits: 5,275
sqlfriends (8/28/2014)
But sometimes those databases need to work with different SQL server versions.
For example some retired db is at version 2000 and only works with 2000, some with 2005 etc.
So only one instance cannot meet the requirment.


In my experience, most of the time the lowest compatibility mode is sufficient. Hardly ever have I had problem unless one is supporting 7.0 or earlier.
Post #1608409
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse