PersistedGrants table has ClientId, SubjectId and Type columns as navchars. I would expect them to be foreign keys instead referencing to Clients, Subjects and Type tables. I've been wandering why this patter has been chosen? Is it performing better this way despite taking more space?
Also keeping all in one thread, how can I configure IdentityServer4 to delete expired rows(Keys)?
Thanks
I'm not the author but I'd imagine it's because the design of the framework is not wedded to having to use a relational DB. The repositories for configuration and operational data are separate and could live in physically separate databases and therefore enforcing referential integrity when you happen to be using the same DB for both doesn't really make sense.
Related
We are implementing Services Oriented Architecture (SOA). We have different service databases for each, Customer Management, Orders, Shipping, Refunds. What is strategies to maintain foreign key relationships across tables in different databases (since cross database foreign keys are not allowed in SQL Server)? Should foreign keys be substituted with business API rules?
This is not Microservices; where database information is replicated in each arena, but SOA. We did not want put everything in 1 database, since different backup maintenance hours, did not want deadlock/runaway query to bring down all services. Service Oriented Architecture does not dictate if we should have 1 database or multiple.
You can use a Guid(UUID) as the key of your entities, generated by the creator and then you can use that Guid across databased and tables to reference the entity in question.
for example, when you create a new order, the ui will generate the order's Id, send a message to the component creating the order, the component will then publish an event using that orderId so that the other components can do related work to that order without accessing the database to get that id.
Make sense?
When our IT department converts Access databases to SQL Server the relationships do not transfer over. In the past, I have provided ERDs that they can use to build the relationships. In this case, I didn't.
What are the possible consequences of defining the table relationships in the MS Access Front End versus on the SQL Server itself?
It would be ideal if I could just create the relationships in Access and avoid submitting a request to IT, but I don't want to risk performance issues now or in the future.
There may be some misconceptions.
A relationship in SQL Server enforces referential integrity (an order cannot have a customer ID that doesn't exist). It does not automatically create an index on the Foreign Key, so it has per se no impact on performance.
But in most cases it is a good idea to define an index on a foreign key, to improve performance.
A relationship that you define in Access on linked tables does neither. It cannot enforce referential integrity (that's the server's job).
It is merely a "hint" that the tables are related via the specified fields, e.g., so that the Query Builder can automatically join the tables if they are added to the query design. (copied from here)
So you should
Create the relationships in SQL Server to avoid inconsistent data. ("But my application logic prevents that!", I hear you say. Well, applications have bugs.)
Create indexes on foreign keys where appropriate to avoid performance problems.
If you are working with queries in the Access frontend, additionally define the relationships there.
Ideally you should have a test server where you can yourself define the relationships, and just send the finished SQL script to IT.
we are using .net mvc and sqlserver db.
EDIT
We are also using NHibernate for data access. I mention this because we will not be writing our own sql or do stored procs. triggers in the db might work but I don't know if you can do that between databases.
END EDIT
we want to have a multi tenant set up so each client has there own instance of the db. However, we need to have each tenant connect to an other database which has a great deal of user information. there will be some small amount of shared data between them. Basically the tenants will be referencing the data of the users in the shared database.
The idea is that some people will use just the shared database ( independent clients ) they then may well be hired by one of the tenant clients. the tenant will then want access to the new employees data in the shared database. Further the employee may leave one tenant and join another or leave one and remain independent and want access to thier data. We could of course have the shared database schema in each tenant and just do a big export import each time some one left or joined but this seems like a lot of trouble too.
I am asking for any advice on how to manage the fact that the tenants will have references to the shared database but no referential integrity. Or if there is an alternate approach or whatever.
Thank you,
Raif
Across databases you have to give up declarative referential integrity (foreign keys). However you can still enforce this (if you think you need to) using after or instead of triggers, or if you control all data manipulation via stored procedures, you can do it there (on insert or update, for example, you can check first, or as part of the modification join to or use EXISTS against the table(s) in other databases to be sure that a valid value is being used).
I've worked with multi-tenant models and there can be huge benefits that are worth the costs (e.g. giving up DRI in some cases). For things that are mostly reference data and that aren't free-text entry, there shouldn't be a whole lot of extra effort required.
I am planning to use ASP.NET MVC2 implemented membership system to manage users. Database that uses application should have tables that are related with these users. Is it possible to use two different databases and make relationships (foreign keys) between them or I will have to merge these two databases into one?
Thanks,
Ile
It is NOT possible to put up relationships between databases. You CAN use triggers to ensure relational integrity.
Otherwise I would say: all in one database, put them into different schemata.
I would put membership/roles in a separate database. I don't think having foreign key constraints is that useful. Its better decoupling if you go through the membership API rather than join with the tables directly. The only thing in the membership database you might need to look up often is the username. If thats becomes a performance problem I'd probably just create an lookup table, either in memory or in a lookup table in the other component's database.
I've been tasked with revisiting a database schema we designed and use internally for various ticketing and reporting systems. Currently there exists about 40 tables in one Oracle database schema supporting perhaps six webapps.
However, there's one unifying relationship amongst them all: a rooms table describing the room. Room name, purpose and other data are thrown into a shared table for each app. My initial idea was to pull each of these applications into a separate database, and perform joins between a given database and the room database. But I've discovered this solution prevents foreign key constraints in SQL Server 2005. It seems silly to duplicate one table for each app and keep those multiple copies synchronized.
Should I just leave everything in one large DB, or is there something else I can do separate the tables without losing FK constraints?
The only way to achieve built-in referential integrity is to have the table inside the database in which it is referenced. You might be able to achieve the equivalent of referential integrity using triggers but it would likely be deathly slow.
You might be able to use SQL Server replication, in it's "Transactional replication" mode/form. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151176.aspx
if all the apps truly use and depend on the rooms - then keep them all in one DB.
you can still set privilege on the tables properly, and manage the data sets in the non overlapping areas normally -
is there any task you imagine you will not be able to perform when things are together?