November 29, 2001 at 6:48 am
We are currently using Oracle db for our apps, but in near future we could use SQL Server 2000 for some new apps we will develop. We have a lot of expirience with Oracle and we found using mulitiple owners in one database is very good database design. Because we are planning to use multiple owners in SQL Server we found some "problems". Because we have more owners we are forced to make more logins for each database, and we don't want to make ekstra login for each database owner (user). Because you can't make database user without login we are planning on using one login and multiple database roles, each role for one database owner. In this way we will have only one login for "db owners" and multiple owners in each database. My question is, are there any isues or known problems (performance...) if we will use database roles as database owners (owners of object, tables, views...).
Thank you...
Robert
November 29, 2001 at 6:50 pm
I generally recommend (along with most of the rest of the crowd here) to avoid object ownership - I have all my objects owned by dbo. In my experience the problems resulting from non-dbo ownership far exceed any gains. Definitely assign the logins(users) to roles and grant the permissions to the roles. There is no performance hit that Im aware of in using roles in any manner, users and roles are stored in the same table, though of course it will be slightly faster if you fully qualify rather than rely on the db..table syntax. If you look at what roles can do, the only reason to have non-dbo objects is if you will have multiple objects with the same name - not trying to belabor the obvious, just mean that security can be sufficiently applied without resorting to ownership.
Andy
November 30, 2001 at 9:47 am
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply