When designing databases, I have been following the conventions of the Microsoft AdventureWorks sample database. They use schemas to logically separate groups of tables, e.g. Person, Production or Sales. It makes a lot of sense from a security point of view as well as from an organizational pov.
However, I have some tables that are used in multiple schemas. For example, a Country table that contains all countries. It wouldn't make sense to assign a sepecific schema to it, e.g. Person.Country or Production.Country as it is used in tables of different schemas.
Therefore, which schema do I assign it to?
you can use the "dbo" schema, its the default schema for sql-server and many others.
Related
I read a write up about database schema.
A SQL Server schema is a container of objects. For example you may have a large enterprise application and then is a good practice to use different schemas for different purposes (e.g. put HR related tables into HR schema, accounting related tables into Accounting schema and so on). A schema can be owned by any user, and the ownership is transferable.
They said: use different schemas for different purposes (e.g. put HR related tables into HR schema, accounting related tables into Accounting schema and so on)
Do they mean create new database for HR and again new database for accounting?
Because when we create a database then a single schema is created so we cannot create multiple schema in single SQL Server database as far I know.
So please tell me how is it possible to create different schemas for different purposes in a single database? Thanks
Purpose of Schema
Schemas in sql server were introduced in sql server 2005, The main purpose was to eliminate User's ownership of objects in sql server. or you can say to separate users from objects in sql server.
Prior to Sql server 2005 objects in sql server (Tables, views, Store proceders etc) were owned by users. Typically the user who created it.
And that user had to give permissions to other users to use that particular object.
Imagine a scenario where 12 developers are working in a company and all developers are creating sql objects left, right centre. Now all the developers had to give permissions to other 11 developers if they had to work objects created by that one developer. quite a bit of mess isnt it??
Since sql server 2005 came with Schema. All the objects were Owned by a Schema Not a User. if you havent created any custom schema it will be under default Schema dbo.
Now anyone who has permission to dbo schema has permission to any object under dbo schema.
Why it is a good idea to create different schemas for different departments in your case. It may be because HR people doesnt need to know anything about Finance stuff. so you can create a HR schema and give HR people permission only on HR schema. and vice versa with finance people. That will restrict their access to only objects related to their departments.
And we can create multiple Schemas in one database if you have ever worked with Adventureworks database, it has Schemas like 'Production', 'Sales' etc etc.
Read here to learn more about schemas in sql server.
No they mean create a schema. Create schema works within a database. There are all sorts of uses for it, I tend to think of it as either namespacing or a more natural way of partitioning a smallish database and keeping role based access, where you can think of schema as a user group.
Unfortunately, there are two meanings to the word "schema" in the database world.
One means the overall design of the database tables. "Show me your database schema", for example. This would be the collection of "create table" commands, or and ERD diagram.
The other is a synonym for "namespace", which the article in question is referring to. You can store tables, functions etc in different namespaces to ease cognitive load or use for security grouping.
I am creating a database with about 40 different tables.
I have heard about people grouping tables into database 'schemas' - what are the implications of using different schemas in a database? Can tables from one schema still relate to another schema? What are the functional differences between different schemas?
Where are schemas located in SSMS? They are rightfully placed under the security tab.
Lets use the AdventureWorks databases.
If you assign security at the schema level, purchasing users will only have access to the purchasing table and sales people will have only access to the sales tables.
In fact, they will not even see the other tables if you set it up correctly.
If you combine schemas with creating tables/indexes on file groups, now you can place all the sales people onto file group sales and purchasing on file group purchasing.
IE - Spreading the I/O load.
In short, I think schemas are an unknown and little used feature.
Check out my blog article on this fact.
http://craftydba.com/?p=4326
I assume that you are talking about SQL Server. You can join and reference between tables in different schemas. I see it mostly used for visual organization and/or for managing objects' permission (you can assign permissions at the schema-level).
If you are worried about any negative effects of doing dbo.table vs custom.table - there aren't any that I imagine you would encounter.
Schemas are just collections of database objects. They are useful for maintaining separation of sets of objects.
There is always at least one schema. For SQL Server it is named dbo.
One implication of having multiple schemas is that you will have to manage permissions for the various schemas. This is usually done via a role that's associated with the schema.
Objects in one schema are available to objects from another, and there is no performance penalty in writing queries that use objects from multiple schemas.
My database has been created with table names looking like this for the user information:
DROP TABLE [dbo].[webpages_Membership];
DROP TABLE [dbo].[webpages_OAuthMembership];
DROP TABLE [dbo].[webpages_Roles];
DROP TABLE [dbo].[webpages_UsersInRoles];
Is this somewhat of a standard when it comes to table naming conventions? If I now want
to make some new tables would it be reasonable to also name them things like
admin_application
admin_account
or do DBAs normally assign tables used to hold different things to different users when they want to group table types?
I would just like to find out how people normally group tables in an application. Am I
right to assume they are all under one owner in this case dbo or do people leave the
table names alone and have them stored in different owner accounts?
Yes, the best way is to use schemas to divide logically grouped tables. Good example of this is Adventure works database you can download from CodePlex. They have several schemas for different parts of the company such as Person, Production, Purcahsing, Sales and other. See more details on how MS designed this DB.
Have a look at schemas:
create schema webpages authorization dbo;
GO
create table webpages.Membership (...
create table webpages.OAuthMembership (...
create schema admin authorization dbo;
GO
create table admin.application (...
It used to be that before SQL Server 2005, you needed to create a database user in order to create a schema. However, since then, you can create schemas for organizational purposes. Schemas cannot contain schemas, so it's a single level. Schemas can contain any database object, i.e. tables, stored procedures, etc..
Schemas need to have an owner, hence the authorization bit above. Specifying dbo here will make it the same as if you had created it in the dbo schema.
Consider a database server whose job today is to house one database. Likely the database will be moved in the future to another database instance which houses multiple databases & schemas.
Let's pretend the app/project is called Invoicer 2.0. The database is called AcmeInvoice. The database holds all the invoice, customer, and product information. Here's a diagram of the actors and their roles and behaviour.
The schema(s) will largely be used to easily assign permissions to roles. The added benefit here is that the objects aren't under dbo, and that the objects & permissions can be ported to another machine in the future.
Question
What conventions do you use when naming the schema?
Is it good form to name the schema the same as the database?
I would think that if your schema name ends up being the same as your database schema, then you are just adding redundancy to your database. Find objects in your database that have common scope or purpose and create a schema to relect that scope. So for example if you have an entity for Invoices, and you have some supporting lookup tables for invoice states, etc, then put them all in an invoice schema.
As a generally rule of thumb, I would try to avoid using a name that reflects the application name, database name or other concrete/physical things because they can change, and find a name that conceptually represents the scope of your objects that will go into the schema.
Your comment states that "the schemas will largely be used to easily assign permissions to roles". Your diagram shows specific user types having access to some/all tables or some/all stored procs. I think trying to organize objects conceptually into schemas and organize them from a security standpoint into schemas are conflicting things. I am in favour of creating roles in sql server to reflect the types of users, and grant those roles access to the specific objects that each user type needs, as apposed to granting the role or user access the schema to build your security framework..
Why would you name the schema the same as the database? This means all database objects fall under the same schema. If this is the case, why have a schema at all?
Typically schema's are used to group objects within a common scope of activity or function. For example, given what you've described, you might have an Invoice schema, a Customer schema and a Product schema. All Invoice related objects would go into the Invoice schema, all Customer related objects would go into the Customer schema, and the same for Products.
We often will use a Common schema as well which includes objects that might be common to our entire application.
I would call the database AcmeInvoice (or another suitable name) and the schema Invoicer2.
My reasons are as follows: Acmeinvoice means I am grouping all of that applications objects/data together. It can therefore be moved as one unit to other machines (a backup/restore or unattach/attach).
The schema would be Invoicer2. Applications change, maybe in the future you will have Invoicer21 (you would create a schema), or perhaps a reporting module or system (Reports schema).
I find that the use of schemas allows me to separate data/procedures in one database into different groups which make it easier to adminster permissions.
Is it possible to have same table name on different schema with different data on the tables within the one database? I think rather than create multiple database (that hold same table name) i should create multiple schema instead.
Something like:
Schema 1:
table A, table B
Schema 2:
table B, table X
PS: table B hold different data for each schema
And most basic question did every schema (user) hold different table set? In SQL Server and MySQL every user on same database have same table set, the difference was only on roles, how about Oracle?
Thanks
Yes this is possible. A schema in Oracle is what a MySQL user would call a database.
However, you need to be careful when accessing either of the tables now if the user you connect with to the database instance has access to both. To unambiguously reference a table in a specific schema, use schema.table.
Here's the documentation on namespaces: https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/20/sqlrf/Database-Object-Names-and-Qualifiers.html#GUID-3C59E44A-5140-4BCA-B9E1-3039C8050C49
As jackrabbit says objects in different schemas have different namespaces.
Each schema in the database has its own namespaces for the objects it contains. This means, for example, that two tables in different schemas are in different namespaces and can have the same name.
Within a schema things are a little more complex.
Because tables and views are in the same namespace, a table and a view in the same schema cannot have the same name. However, tables and indexes are in different namespaces. Therefore, a table and an index in the same schema can have the same name.