Currently, I'm working on a MERN Web Application that'll need to communicate with a Microsft SQL Server database on a different server but on the same network.
Data will only be "transferred" from the Mongo database to the MSSQL one based on a user action. I think I can accomplish this by simply transforming the data to transfer into the appropriate format on my Express server and connecting to the MSSQL via the matching API.
On the flip side, data will be transferred from the MSSQL database to the Mongo one when a certain field is updated in a record. I think I can accomplish this with a Trigger, but I'm not exactly sure how.
Do either of these solutions sound reasonable or are there more better/industry standard methods that I should be employing. Any and all help is much appreciated!
There are (in general) two ways of doing this.
If the data transfer needs to happen immediately, you may be able to use triggers to accomplish this, although be aware of your error handling.
The other option is to develop some form of worker process in your favourite scripting language and run this on a schedule. (This would be my preferred option, as my personal familiarity with triggers is fairly limited). If option 1 isn't viable, you could set your schedule to be very frequent, say once per minute or every x seconds, as long as a new task doesn't spawn before the previous is completed.
The broader question though, is do you need to have data duplicated across two different sources? The obvious pitfall with this approach is consistency, should anything fail you can end up with two data sources wildly out of sync with each other and your approach will have to account for this.
Related
I'm trying to design a database schema for Djabgo rest framework web application.
At some point, I have two choces:
1- Choose a schema in which in one or several apies, I have to get a queryset from database and iterate and order it with python. (For example, I can store some datas in an array-data-typed column, get them from database and sort them with python.)
2- store the data in another table and insert a kind of big number of rows with each insert. This way, I can get the data in my favorite format in much less lines with orm codes.
I tried some basic tests and benchmarking to see which way is faster, and letting database handle more of the job (second way) didn't let me down. But I don't have the means of setting a more real situatuin and here's the question:
Is it still a good idea to let database handle the job when it also has to handle hundreds of requests from other apies and clients each second?
Is database (and orm) usually faster and more reliable than backend?
As a general rule, you want to let the database do work when the work is appropriate for the database. Sorting result sets would be in that category.
Keep in mind:
The database is running on a server, often on a distributed system and so it has access to more resources.
Databases are designed to handle large data, so they are not limited by the memory in a single thread.
When this question comes up, often more data needs to be passed back to the application than is strictly needed. Consider a problem such as getting the top 10 of something.
Mixing processing in the application and the database often requires multiple queries and passing data back and forth, which is expensive.
(And there are no doubt other considerations.)
There are some situations where it might be more efficient or convenient to do work in the application. A common example is formatting result sets for the application -- say turning 1234.56 into $1,234.56. Other examples would be when the application language has capabilities that are not directly in SQL or are hard to implement in SQL.
I have a system that we have recently developed - a web application over a SQL server database. The SQL server database has been set up to be a 'multi-tenant' database, with many different 'installations' of our web site accessing the same database.
We have another application that runs along similar lines, the main difference being that it has many different 'installations' all accessing their own seperate databases.
All these websites run on the same server and all the databases reside in the same SQL server instance.
Each of our clients would have one of each of these systems and up to this point, we have had some fairly light integration between these two systems, which has been handled via web service calls.
We now have a new change that is going to require me to return a list of data from the multi-tenant system, but filter it based on criteria stored in the databases of the other system. I can see a few ways of doing this, but was wondering if anybody had any bright ideas:
Web service again - don't like this idea, as it means taking a list of data and making a call for each individual item, which is both slow and ugly.
Writing some dynamic SQL within the database layer to do a join on .dbo.table, which is also a bit ugly, and can be hard to maintain.
Replicate the data from one database to the other. This is where I am tending towards, however there then comes a risk of the data getting out of sync.
I'd like to do something clever about views in my multi-tenant database, but I don't want to have to create a seperate set of views each time we create a new database for the second system...
depending on business size I go with #1 or #2.
#1 is more scalabe and good for heterogenus clients but harder to implement and maintain. Since you do't have public APIs you can go to #2.
#2 needs an expert DBA and very error-prone
#3 is the worst solution IMO since redundacy would happen and it's hard to resolve later.
What I suggest is a short-term plan and a long-term plan. In short term use #1 or #2 and at the same time redesign your database. Then you can add new data model to system and it can coexist with legacy dbase. When you are insure of it's functionality switch to new db but still remain lgacy system. And finally when new db has no problem after a while exit the legacy db from circuit.
Don't change the data model. It's risky. Just make another abstract wrapper over it.
You can replicate database on another server and let this new wrapper work with copy of data.
If any data corruption happened, simply restore to main copy.
This question was asked quite some time ago, and while it covers possible solutions for SQL 2005 and 2008, it lacks a good solution for SQL 2000, which is still far too common.
I need a way to monitor certain fields of a database table for changes, and notify my application when these changes occur so that I can blast them out on the local network as broadcast messages where anyone with a client can listen for them and display them as alerts (think something similar to stock market data reaching specific thresholds).
I do NOT want to poll the database for several reasons. 1) I don't wish to add additional load to the servers. 2) I would rather get notifications in near real-time rather than wait for the polling frequency to expire.
Now, I could put logic in the applications that update the database, but the data can be updated from several sources, including the web and I don't want to deal with web servers sending notifications across DMZ boundaries, etc.. And I don't want to have to maintain this in 20 different applications (the more overpowering issue).
I've seen this done on SQL 2000 using extended stored procs and triggers, but the xp's seem to be difficult to make cross platform, and they break when installed on SQL 2005 and 2008. Maybe that's just bad code in the examples i've seen, i'm not sure, but I am looking for something that works in SQL 2000 and later versions.
Any ideas?
EDIT:
I've thought about dropping support for 2000, but that really doesn't solve my problem. I would like a solution that is going to continue to work for years to come. One problem with many microsoft technologies is that they drop support for them. For instance, Notification services does what I need it to do, but they decided to deprecate that in 2008 and it won't be available in the next version. So i'm looking for a solution that has a good chance of sticking around.
Very simple solution
You could have a trigger that calls a webpage, notifying of an update.
This may be quite bad, because if the server can't get to the web, for some reason, it may make the insert operation quite slow. Also, depending on the frequency of inserts, it could be equally bad.
Alternative plan
In a trigger, write to a queue. (I happen to be in love with MSMQ). Then, have something waiting against that queue, and you will get the messages in 'real time'. Again, it's prone to the frequency of updates, as above.
Better plan
Have a trigger that posts the data to a 'tblUpdatedThings' table, which you then poll. But I know you don't want to poll. Regardless, I consider this better, due to the reasons I describe.
You want your solution to be in the database, but you want it to be database-independent. You can't have it both ways. Pick one. If you want to be independent of the database, don't allow the sources to write to the database directly, but to call a central service that you control, and where you can trap any events of interest to you.
If you want to use database functionality without polling, you have to deploy code that the database invokes, and you will have a dependency on future versions supporting your code.
I have a series of Oracle databases that need to access each other's data. The most efficient way to do this is to use database links - setting up a few database links I can get data from A to B with the minimum of fuss. The problem for me is that you end up with a tightly-coupled design and if one database goes down it can bring the coupled databases with it (or perhaps part of an application on those databases).
What alternative approaches have you tried for sharing data between Oracle databases?
Update after a couple of responses...
I wasn't thinking so much a replication, more on accessing "master data". For example, if I have a central database with currency conversion rates and I want to pull a rate into a separate database (application). For such a small dataset igor-db's suggestion of materialized views over DB links would work beautifully. However, when you are dynamically sampling from a very large dataset then the option of locally caching starts to become trickier. What options would you go for in these circumstances. I wondered about an XML service but tuinstoel (in a comment to le dorfier's reply) rightly questioned the overhead involved.
Summary of responses...
On the whole I think igor-db is closest, which is why I've accepted that answer, but I thought I'd add a little to bring out some of the other answers.
For my purposes, where I'm looking at data replication only, it looks like Oracle BASIC replication (as opposed to ADVANCED) replication is the one for me. Using materialized view logs on the master site and materialized views on the snapshot site looks like an excellent way forward.
Where this isn't an option, perhaps where the data volumes make full table replication an issue, then a messaging solution seems the most appropriate Oracle solution. Oracle Advanced Queueing seems the quickest and easiest way to set up a messaging solution.
The least preferable approach seems to be roll-your-own XML web services but only where the relative ease of Advanced Queueing isn't an option.
Streams is the Oracle replication technology.
You can use MVs over database links (so database 'A' has a materialized view of the data from database 'B'. If 'B' goes down, the MV can't be refreshed but the data is still in 'A').
Mileage may depend on DB volumes, change volumes...
It looks to me like it's by definition tightly coupled if you need simultaneous synchronous access to multiple databases.
If this is about transferring data, for instance, and it can be asynchronous, you can install a message queue between the two and have two processes, with one reading from the source and the other writing to the sink.
The OP has provided more information. He states that the dataset is very large. Well how large is large? And how often are the master tables changed?
With the use of materialized view logs Oracle will only propagate the changes made in the master table. A complete refresh of the data isn't necessary. Oracle streams also only communicate the modifications to the other side.
Buying storage is cheap, so why not local caching? Much cheaper than programming your own solutions.
An XML service doesn't help you when its database is not available so I don't understand why it would help? Oracle has many options for replication, explore them.
edit
I've build xml services. They provide interoperability between different systems with a clear interface (contract). You can build a xml service in C# and consume the service with Java. However xml services are not fast.
Why not use Advanced Queuing? Why roll your own XML service to move messages (DML) between Oracle instances - It's already there. You can have propagation move messages from one instance to another when they are both up. You can process them as needed in the destination servers. AQ is really rather simple to set up and use.
Why do they need to be separate databases?
Having a single database/instance with multiple schemas might be easier.
Keeping one database up (with appropriate standby databases etc) will be easier than keeping N up.
What kind of immediacy do you need and how much bi-directionality? If the data can be a little older and can be pulled from one "master source", create a series of simple ETL scripts run on a schedule to pull the data from the "source" database into the others.
You can then tailor the structure of the data to feed the needs of the client database(s) more precisely and you can change the structure of the source data until you're blue in the face.
My current development project has two aspects to it. First, there is a public website where external users can submit and update information for various purposes. This information is then saved to a local SQL Server at the colo facility.
The second aspect is an internal application which employees use to manage those same records (conceptually) and provide status updates, approvals, etc. This application is hosted within the corporate firewall with its own local SQL Server database.
The two networks are connected by a hardware VPN solution, which is decent, but obviously not the speediest thing in the world.
The two databases are similar, and share many of the same tables, but they are not 100% the same. Many of the tables on both sides are very specific to either the internal or external application.
So the question is: when a user updates their information or submits a record on the public website, how do you transfer that data to the internal application's database so it can be managed by the internal staff? And vice versa... how do you push updates made by the staff back out to the website?
It is worth mentioning that the more "real time" these updates occur, the better. Not that it has to be instant, just reasonably quick.
So far, I have thought about using the following types of approaches:
Bi-directional replication
Web service interfaces on both sides with code to sync the changes as they are made (in real time).
Web service interfaces on both sides with code to asynchronously sync the changes (using a queueing mechanism).
Any advice? Has anyone run into this problem before? Did you come up with a solution that worked well for you?
This is a pretty common integration scenario, I believe. Personally, I think an asynchronous messaging solution using a queue is ideal.
You should be able to achieve near real time synchronization without the overhead or complexity of something like replication.
Synchronous web services are not ideal because your code will have to be very sophisticated to handle failure scenarios. What happens when one system is restarted while the other continues to publish changes? Does the sending system get timeouts? What does it do with those? Unless you are prepared to lose data, you'll want some sort of transactional queue (like MSMQ) to receive the change notices and take care of making sure they get to the other system. If either system is down, the changes (passed as messages) will just accumulate and as soon as a connection can be established the re-starting server will process all the queued messages and catch up, making system integrity much, much easier to achieve.
There are some open source tools that can really make this easy for you if you are using .NET (especially if you want to use MSMQ).
nServiceBus by Udi Dahan
Mass Transit by Dru Sellers and Chris Patterson
There are commercial products also, and if you are considering a commercial option see here for a list of of options on .NET. Of course, WCF can do async messaging using MSMQ bindings, but a tool like nServiceBus or MassTransit will give you a very simple Send/Receive or Pub/Sub API that will make your requirement a very straightforward job.
If you're using Java, there are any number of open source service bus implementations that will make this kind of bi-directional, asynchronous messaging a snap, like Mule or maybe just ActiveMQ.
You may also want to consider reading Udi Dahan's blog, listening to some of his podcasts. Here are some more good resources to get you started.
I'm mid-way through a similar project except I have multiple sites that need to keep in sync over slow connections (dial-up in some cases).
Firstly you need to track changes, if you can use SQL 2008 (even the Express version is enough if the 2Gb limit isn't a problem) this will ease the pain greatly, just turn on Change Tracking on the database and each table. We're using SQL Server 2008 at the head office with the extended schema and SQL Express 2008 at each site with a sub-set of data and limited schema.
Secondly you need to track your changes, Sync Services does the trick nicely and supports using a WCF gateway into the main database. In this example you will need to use the Sync using SQL Express Client sample as a starting point, note that it's based on SQL 2005 so you'll need to update it to take advantage of the Change Tracking features in 2008. By default the Sync Services uses SQL CE on the clients, which I'm sure isn't enough in your case. You'll need a service that runs on your Web Server that periodically (could be as often as every 10 seconds if you want) runs the Synchronize() method. This will tell your main database about changes made locally and then ask the server for all changes made there. You can set up the get and apply SQL code to call stored procedures and you can add event handlers to handle conflicts (e.g. Client Update vs Server Update) and resolve them accordingly at each end.
We have a shop as a client, with three stores connected to the same VPN
Two of the shops have a computer running as a "server" for that shop and the the third one has the "master database"
To synchronize all to the master we don't have the best solution, but it works: there is a dedicated PC running an application that checks the timestamp of every record in every table of the two stores and if it is different that the last time you synchronize, it copies the results
Note that this works both ways. I.e. if you update a product in the master database, this change will propagate to the other two shops. If you have a new order in one of the shops, it will be transmitted to the "master".
With some optimizations you can have all the shops synchronize in around 20minutes
Recently I have had a lot of success with SQL Server Service Broker which offers reliable, persisted asynchronous messaging out of the box with very little implementation pain.
It is quick to set up and as you learn more you can use some of the more advanced features.
Unknown to most, it is also part of the desktop editions so it can be used as a workstation messaging system
If you have existing T-SQL skills they can be leveraged as all the code to read and write messages is done in SQL
It is blindingly fast
It is a vastly under-hyped part of SQL Server and well worth a look.
I'd say just have a job that copies the data in the pub database input table into a private database pending table. Then once you update the data on the private side have it replicated to the public side. If you don't have any of the replicated data on the public side updated it should be a fairly easy transactional replication solution.