I am working with industrial equipment that inserts some text data into a SQL Server 2008 database every time it cycles (about every 25 seconds). I am looking to forward that data to a mongo database in real time to use with an internal Meteor application.
Would there be any obvious starting point? The closest answer I have found is at: https://github.com/awatson1978/meteor-cookbook/blob/master/cookbook/datalayer.md
Q: Well, how am I suppose to use the data in my SQL database then?
Through REST interfaces and/or exposing the SQL database as a JSON stream. We put the ORM outside of Meteor. So, the trick is to move your data from your SQL database into Meteor's Mongo database, and have Mongo act as an object store or caching layer.
Apologies, if it is something obvious.
You need to use Mongo, but as simple repository for your MySql database.
This maintains all Meteor's characteristics and uses Mongo as a temporal repository for your MySql or PostgreSql databases.
A brilliant attempt to that is mysql-shadow by #perak (https://github.com/perak/mysql-shadow). It does what it says, keeps Mongo synchronized both ways with MySql and let's you work your data in MySql.
The bad news is that the developer will not continue maintaining it, but what is done is enough to work with simple scenarios where you don't have complex triggers that update other tables or stuff like that.
This works with MySql of course, but if you look at the code the MS SQL implementation is not hard.
For a full featured synchronization you can use SymmetricsDS (http://www.symmetricds.org), a very well tested database replicator. This involves setting up a new java server, of course, but is by far the best way to be sure that you will be able to convert your Mongo database in a simple repository of your real MySql, PostgreSQL, SQL Server , Informix database. I have to check it myself yet.
For now MySQL Shadow seems like a good enough solution.
One advantage of this approach is that you can still use all standard Meteor features, packages, meteor deployment and so on. You don´t have to do anything but set up the synch mechanism, and you are not breaking anything.
Also, if someday the Meteor team uses some of the dollars raised in SQL integration, your app is more likely to work as is.
Related
I have a scenario where I get queries on a webservice that need to be executed on a database.
The source for these queries is from a physical device so I cant really change the input to my queries.
I get the queries from the device in MSSQL. Earlier the backend was in SQL Server, so things were pretty straight forward. Queries would come in and get executed as is on the DB.
Now we have migrated to Postgres and we don't have to the option to modify the input data (SQL queries).
What I want to know is. Is there any library that will do this SQL Server/T-SQL translation for me so I can run the SQL Server queries through this and execute the resulting Postgres query on the database. I searched a lot but couldn't find much that would do this. (There are libraries that convert schema from one to another but what I need is to be able to translate SQL Server queries to Postgres on the fly)
I understand there are quite a bit of nuances that will be different between SQL and postgres so a translator will be needed in between. I am open to libraries in any language(that preferably runs on linux : ) ) or if you have any other suggestions on how to go about this would also be welcome.
Thanks!
If I were in your position I would have a look on upgrading your SQL Sever to 2019 ASAP (as of today, you can find on Twitter that the officially supported production ready version is available on request). Then have a look on the Polybase feature they (re)introduced in this version. In short words it allows you to connect your MSSQL instance to other data source (like Postgres) and query the data in as they would be "normal" SQL Server DB (via T-SQL) then in the background your queries will be transformed into the native pgsql and consumed from your real source.
There is not much resources on this product (as 2019 version) yet, but it seems to be one of the most powerful features coming with this release.
This is what BOL is saying about it (unfortunately, it mostly covers the old 2016 version).
There is an excellent, yet very short presentation by Bob Ward (
Principal Architect # Microsoft) he did during SQL Bits 2019 on this topic.
The only thing I can think of that might be worth trying is SQL::Translator. It's a set of Perl modules that have been around for ages but seem to be still maintained. Whether it does what you want will depend on how detailed those queries are.
The no-brainer solution is to keep a SQL Server Express in place and introduce Triggers that call out to the Postgres database.
If this is too heavy, you can look at creating a Tabular Data Stream (TDS is SQL Server network transport) gateway with limited functionality and map each possible incoming query with any parameters to a static Postgres query. This limits any testing to a finite, small, number of cases.
This way, there is no SQL Server, and you have more control than with the trigger option.
If your terminals have a limited dialect demand then this may be practical. Attempting a general translation is very likely to be worth more than the devices cost to replace (unless you have zillions already deployed).
There is an open implementation FreeTDS that you could use if you are happy with C or Java.
when using a specific database such as sql server,do we have to install and configure odbc?
and my other question is why cant thrift/avro/rest/protobuf be used with rdbms,they are services,why are they just used with nosql dbs?
I am reading professional nosql book,and there is a list of different nosql db access methods,and they are listed as nosql db access methods,but when I googled them I saw they are services for serializing datas and so on(each of them is for sth).
thanks in advance.
These are multiple questions here.
(1) No, SQL Server is accessed best via the SQL Native Client, ADO/MDAC/OLE-DB. Performance-wise ODBC is not recommended at all, although it still may be the most viable option in certain cases.
(2) Thrift is only an RPC-mechanism, which has nothing to do with DB in General. This is a completely different aspect. However, Thrift can of course be used, and in fact it is actually used by the NoSQL database Apache Cassandra
I'd recommend to first find out what kind of DB is most suitable for your use case: It may be a typical SQL database, or it may be a classical ISAM or even something like Cassandra, CouchDB or MongoDB. Once you know that, you'll surely find out how to conect with the DB of your choice - or just ask another question :-).
I have two applications with own database.
1.) Desktop application which has vb.net winforms interface, runs in offline enterprise network and stores data in central database [SQL Server]
**All the data entry and other office operations are carried out and stored in central database
2.) Second application has been build on php. it has html pages and runs as website in online environment. It stores all data in mysql database.
**This application is accessed by registered members only and they are facilitied with different reports of the data processed by 1st application.
Now I have to synchronize data between online and offline database servers. I am planning for following:
1.) Write a small program to export all the data of SQL Server [offline server] to a file in CVS format.
2.) Login to admin Section of live server.
3.) Upload the exported cvs file to the server.
4.) Import the data from cvs file to mysql database.
Is the method i am planning good or it can be tunned to perform good. I would also appreciate for other nice ways for data synchronisation other than changing applications.. ie. network application to some other using mysql database
What you are asking for does not actually sound like bidirectional sync (or movement of data both ways from SQL Server to MySQL and from MySQL to SQL Server) which is a good thing as it really simplifies things for you. Although I suspect your method of using CSV's (which I would assume you would use something like BCP to do this) would work, one of the issues is that you are moving ALL of the data every time you run the process and you are basically overwriting the whole MySQL db everytime. This is obviously somewhat inefficient. Not to mention during that time the MySQL db would not be in a usable state.
One alternative (assuming you have SQL Server 2008 or higher) would be to look into using this technique along with Integrated Change Tracking or Integrated Change Capture. This is a capability within SQL Server that allows you to determine data that has changed since a certain point of time. What you could do is create a process that just extracts the changes since the last time you checked to a CSV file and then apply those to MySQL. If you do this, don't forget to also apply the deletes as well.
I don't think there's an off the shelf solution for what you want that you can use without customization - but the MS Sync framework (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sync/default) sounds close.
You will probably need to write a provider for MySQL to make it go - which may well be less work than writing the whole data synchronization logic from scratch. Voclare is right about the challenges you could face with writing your own synchronization mechanism...
Do look into SQL Server Integration Service as a good alternate.
I have a two-part application, where there is a central database that is edited, and then at certain times, the data is released and distributed as its own application. I would like to use a standalone database for the central database (MySQL, Postgres, Oracle, SQL Server, etc.) and then have a reliable export to an embedded database (probably SQLite) for distribution.
What tools/processes are available for such an export, or is it a practice to be avoided?
EDIT: A couple of additional pieces of information. The distributed application should be able to run without having to connect to another server (ex: your spellchecker still works even you don't have internet), and I don't want to install a full DB server for read-only access to the data.
If you really only want your clients to have read-access to the offline data it should not be that difficult to update your client-data manually.
A good practice would be to use the same product for the server database and the client database. You wouldn't have to write SQL-Statements twice since they use the same SOL-Dialect and same features.
Firebird for example offers a server
and an embedded version.
Also Microsoft offers their MS SQL Server
as a mobile version (compact edition) and there are
also Synchronization services
provided by Microsoft (good blog
describing sync services in visual
studio:
http://keithelder.net/blog/archive/2007/09/23/Sync-Services-for-SQL-Server-Compact-Edition-3.5-in-Visual.aspx)
MySQL has a product which is called "MySQLMobile" but I never actually used it.
I can also recommend SQLite as an embedded database since it is very easy to use.
Depending on your bandwidth and data amount you could even download the whole database and delete the old one. (in Firebird for example only copy the database files and it will also work with the mobile version) Very easy - BUT you have to know if it will work for your scenario. If you have more data you will need something more flexible and sophisticated, only updating the data that really changed.
I have been working on VB6 database desktop programming, but now a client is asking for a
simple web interface (some inserts into SQL Server db used by a desktop application).
The question is: Which approach is better?
1)creating asp.net project, connected directly to the SQL Server database;
2)creating separate (simple) mysql database managed by php and synchronization (in 15 minutes for example)
Thanks.
Personally since you already have the SQL Server database, I see no reason whatsoever to add the complexity of another database and then synchonization. The first alternative is simpler to create and can be secure if you design it correctly. The issue about hosting is irrelevant since you are going to your own database that already exists, so is the issue about cost since the databse is already there. Further since you are already supporting SQL Server, you may be able to reuse some code rather than write new code (mysql's version of SQL is not the same as SQl Server's version). Synching the two databases may be more complex than you think (differnt data types, etc.) and the data in the real database is not real-time whereas with the first alternative it is.
I'd prefer the separate database approach.
It's more secure.
PHP/Mysql hosting is widespread
You can pretty much achieve anything with the technologies available, it just depends on your skill and productivity with specific technologies and the availability of online help. Plus Microsoft stuff you tend to have to pay for whereas PHP/MySQL is totally free.