I use Oracle Database Configuration Assistant to create database. There are 3 default templates:
General purpose or transaction processing
Custom database
Data warehouse
However, choosing any of these 3 template would lead to creation of a database with thousands of default tables (of which I don't understand what they are).
Any method to create a blank database (no tables, no data) with this Oracle Database Configuration Assistant?
As Bob Jarvis noted in the comment area below the question. Those thousands of default tables appear because SYSTEM username is used when accessing the database.
It's impossible to create a totally-blank database (when being viewed as SYSTEM). Connect as SYSDBA and these default tables won't appear.
Related
I was working on Azure Data Studio. By mistake I created a table in the system administrator's database. I want to transfer it to another database which is created by me. How can I transfer that table?
With Azure Data Studio, we can't transfer the table to another database directly. Azure SQL database also doesn't support USE statement. And Azure Data Studio doesn't support import or export jobs. The only way are that:
Create the table with data again in user DB again an then delete is
in System administration's database
Elastic query(CREATE EXTERNAL DATA SOURCE,EXTERNAL TABLE) to cross database query the table data in System
administration's database, and then import it to your user DB.
I tested in Azure Data Studio and it works well. Since you can create table in System administration's database, I think you have enough permission to do this operations.
If you can use SSMS, the could be much easier and there are many ways can achieve it. For example:
Ref the blog:
https://blog.atwork.at/post/How-to-copy-table-data-between-Azure-SQL-Databases
#Json Pan provide in comment.
Export the table into a csv file and then import to user DB.
You also can use Elastic query.
Just choose the way you like.
I am using oracle database for a web application.
Is there a table inside system database that records any or all changes that occur inside the database?
For example, if I insert a row or update a row, it would record this change inside a table.
Does this kind of table exist inside oracle database?
In mysql there is INFORMATION_SCHEMA TABLES that records everything that occurs inside the database.
Oracle too provides auditing mechanisms for your DB however, the subject is very extensive to be treated in a simple answer, since control can go down to a very fine grained auditing. Take a look at Oracle Documentation on this theme, good luck.
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’m after a bit of advice on the best way to go about this is SQL server 2008R2 express. I have a number of applications that are in separate databases on the same server. They are all “plugins” that use a central staff/structure list that will be in a separate database. The application is in the process of being migrated from JET.
What I’m looking for is the best way of all the “plugin” databases being able to see the central database and use those tables in standard queries and views etc.
As I’m using express that rules out any replication solution and so far the only option I can think of is to use triggers or a stored procedure to “push” out all the changes to the plugins. The information needs to be populated on a near enough real time basis however the number of changes will be very small maybe up to 100 a day and the biggest table only has about 1000 rows at the moment (the staff names table).
Hopefully that will cover all everything but if anyone needs any more details then just ask
Thanks
Apologies if I've misunderstood, but from your description it sounds like all these databases are hosted on the same instance of SQL Server - it's your mention of replication that makes me uncertain.
Assuming that's the case, you should be able to replace any copies of tables from the central database which are held in the "plugin" databases with views or synonyms which reference the central tables directly, since SQL server allows you to make references between databases on the same server using three-part naming (database_name.schema_name.object_name)
For example, if each plugin db has a table StaffNames, you could replace this with a view by dropping the table, then creating a view:
drop table StaffNames
go
create view StaffNames
as
select * from <centraldbname>.<schema - probably dbo>.StaffNames
go
and your code should continue to work seamlessly, as long as permissions are set up.
Alternatively, you could replace all the references to the shared tables in the plugin databases with three-part name references to the central database, but the view method requires less work.
In SQL Server 2005, a snapshot of a database can be created that allows read-only access to a database, even when the database is in "recovery pending" mode. One use case for this capability is in creating a reporting database that references a copy of a production database, which is kept current through log-shipping.
In this scenario, how can I implement security on the "snapshot" database that is different from the "production" source database?
For example, in the production database, all access to data is through stored procedures, while in the snapshot database users are allowed to select from table in the database for reporting purposes. The problem the I see is that security for the snapshot database is inherited from the source database, and can not be changed because snapshots are strictly read-only.
Are you able to manage permissions on this database? Would adding a separate user who only has read access to a database be sufficient for this type of scenario? This could be a read-only user on the main database, but is only effectively used on the snapshot db.
i.e. Add a new user, readerMan5000 who is only given select access, to the database in question. Then require users to authenticate through that new credential.
Note to future commenters, you may want to read:
http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/database-administration/sql-server-2005-snapshots/
or
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187054(SQL.90).aspx
before you open your big mouth like me. :)
You can't change permissions after you take the snapshot, but here's one workaround: instead of having them access the tables directly, require them to use views instead. If the views are used only for reporting, then you can set tight security on them in the original database, and then have the users hit those views in the snapshot. You'll need to restrict access on the underlying tables though if you want it to be effective.