Related
We're developing a new eCommerce website and are using NHibernate for the first time. At present we are splitting our data into multiple SQL Server databases, divided per area of functionality. So we have one for UserInfo, one for Orders, one for ProductCatalogue and so on...
Our justification for this decision is twofold really:
the website has the potential to be HUGE (it is a new website for one of the largest online brands in the UK) and we feel that by partitioning our data along functional lines we will be able to move the databases onto their own servers which would give us an easy scaling route should we need it;
my team has always worked this way - partly as a consequence of following the MS Commerce Server pattern from previous projects.
However, reading up on this decision on the internet, we find that the normal response to this sort of model is extremely scathing. "Creating more work for the devs now in order to create more work for the devs later" is one sample comment from Stack Overflow!
In addition, NHibernate is much easier to use with only one database (just one SessionFactory needed). And knowing that Stack Overflow ran off just one box for a long time makes me think that maybe we should not try to be so clever.
So, my question is, "are we correct in thinking that using fine-grained databases might increase our ability to scale or should we sacrifice this for easier development"?
Why don't you just design your database properly and put the files on appropriate disk? Use a cluster if necessary. Creating multiple databases is not an inherently scaling solution. Also - cross database referential integrity? Good luck.
What's your definition of "HUGE"? SQL Server can handle massive databases, but one thing I've learnt is that people often have no idea what constitutes a lot of data.
I've never worked in a project like this. I'm used to databases with several hundred tables, which had never been a problem.
Therefore I can't say if your idea is a good idea, I never tried it. The "my team has always worked this way"-argument is a major driver for many decisions, and I can't even say that it is always wrong.
With NHibernate you organize your data in classes. They can be in different namespaces and assemblies. You usually don't work much with the database directly, you don't need this kind of structure there.
About the scalability argument: I'm not sure if it is really scaling well when you need to access several databases every time. I mean: you always need users and orders and probably more. Then you need to get all this data from several databases.
Agree fully with starskythehutch - keep your related tables together in the same DB. BUT, you may want to consider having separate databases for things that are not related or non-critical to your main product; but that are a part of the app.
For eg: if you decide to log every visit/hit to the site in a DB, you should probably keep that in a separate DB.
The reason you should consider:
1. huge number of transactions - say hundreds of thousands / sec. Having non-critical un-related stuff in a separate DB will ensure that tlog contentions because of this are avoided.
Restore, DBCC CHECKDB, backup times. If you stuff your non-related non-critical stuff in your main DB, you are essentially increasing the size of your DB and it will affect these operations. Having it in separate DB will help you improve performance of these operations.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I have used Relational DB's a lot and decided to venture out on other types available.
This particular product looks good and promising: http://neo4j.org/
Has anyone used graph-based databases? What are the pros and cons from a usability prespective?
Have you used these in a production environment? What was the requirement that prompted you to use them?
I used a graph database in a previous job. We weren't using neo4j, it was an in-house thing built on top of Berkeley DB, but it was similar. It was used in production (it still is).
The reason we used a graph database was that the data being stored by the system and the operations the system was doing with the data were exactly the weak spot of relational databases and were exactly the strong spot of graph databases. The system needed to store collections of objects that lack a fixed schema and are linked together by relationships. To reason about the data, the system needed to do a lot of operations that would be a couple of traversals in a graph database, but that would be quite complex queries in SQL.
The main advantages of the graph model were rapid development time and flexibility. We could quickly add new functionality without impacting existing deployments. If a potential customer wanted to import some of their own data and graft it on top of our model, it could usually be done on site by the sales rep. Flexibility also helped when we were designing a new feature, saving us from trying to squeeze new data into a rigid data model.
Having a weird database let us build a lot of our other weird technologies, giving us lots of secret-sauce to distinguish our product from those of our competitors.
The main disadvantage was that we weren't using the standard relational database technology, which can be a problem when your customers are enterprisey. Our customers would ask why we couldn't just host our data on their giant Oracle clusters (our customers usually had large datacenters). One of the team actually rewrote the database layer to use Oracle (or PostgreSQL, or MySQL), but it was slightly slower than the original. At least one large enterprise even had an Oracle-only policy, but luckily Oracle bought Berkeley DB. We also had to write a lot of extra tools - we couldn't just use Crystal Reports for example.
The other disadvantage of our graph database was that we built it ourselves, which meant when we hit a problem (usually with scalability) we had to solve it ourselves. If we'd used a relational database, the vendor would have already solved the problem ten years ago.
If you're building a product for enterprisey customers and your data fits into the relational model, use a relational database if you can. If your application doesn't fit the relational model but it does fit the graph model, use a graph database. If it only fits something else, use that.
If your application doesn't need to fit into the current blub architecture, use a graph database, or CouchDB, or BigTable, or whatever fits your app and you think is cool. It might give you an advantage, and its fun to try new things.
Whatever you chose, try not to build the database engine yourself unless you really like building database engines.
We've been working with the Neo team for over a year now and have been very happy. We model scholarly artifacts and their relationships, which is spot on for a graph db, and run recommendation algorithms over the network.
If you are already working in Java, I think that modeling using Neo4j is very straight forward and it has the flattest / fastest performance for R/W of any other solutions we tried.
To be honest, I have a hard time not thinking in terms of a Graph/Network because it's so much easier than designing convoluted table structures to hold object properties and relationships.
That being said, we do store some information in MySQL simply because it's easier for the Business side to run quick SQL queries against. To perform the same functions with Neo we would need to write code that we simply don't have the bandwidth for right now. As soon as we do though, I'm moving all that data to Neo!
Good luck.
Two points:
First, on the data I've been working with the past 5 years in SQL Server, I've recently hit the scalability wall with SQL for the type of queries we need to run (nested relationhsips...you know...graphs). I've been playing around with neo4j, and my lookup times are several orders of magnitude faster when I need this kind of lookup.
Second, to the point that graph databases are outdated. Um...no. Early on, as people were trying to figure out how to store and lookup data efficiently, they created and played with graph and network style database models. These were designed so the physical model reflected the logical model, so their efficiency wasnt that great. This type of data structure was good for semi-structured data, but not as good for structured dense data. So, this IBM dude named Codd was researching efficient ways to arrange and store structured data and came up with the idea for the relational database model. And it was good, and people were happy.
What do we have here? Two tools for two different purposes. Graph database models are very good for representing semi-structured data and the relationships between entities (that may or may not exist). Relational databases are good for structured data that has a very static schema, and where join depths do not go very deep. One is good for one kind of data, the other is good for other kinds of data.
To coin the phrase, there is no Silver Bullet. Its very short sighted to say that graph database models are out of date and to use one gives up 40 years of progress. That's like saying using C is giving up all the technological progress we've gone through to get things like Java and C#. That's not true though. C is a tool that is needed for certain tasks. And Java is a tool for other tasks.
I've been using MySQL for years to manage engineering data, and it worked well, but one of the problems we had (but didn't realise we had) was that we always had to plan the schema up-front. Another problem we knew we had was mapping the data up to domain objects and back.
Now we've just started trying out neo4j and it looks like it is solving both problems for us. The ability to add different properties to each node (and relation) has allowed us to re-think our entire approach to data. It is like dynamic versus static languages (Ruby versus Java), but for databases. Building the data model in the database can be done in a much more agile and dynamic way, and that is dramatically simplifying our code.
And since the object model in code is generally a graph structure, mapping from the database is also simpler, with less code and consequently fewer bugs.
And as a additional bonus, our initial prototype code for loading our data into neo4j is actually performing faster than the previous MySQL version. I have no solid numbers on this (yet), but that was a nice additional feature.
But at the end of the day, the choice probably should be based mostly on the nature of your domain model. Does it map better to tables or graphs? Decide by doing some prototypes, load the data and play with it. Use neoclipse to look at different views of the data. Once you've done that, hopefully you know if you're on to a good thing or not.
Here is a good article that talks about the needs that non relational databases fill: http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2009/02/is-the-relational-database-doomed.php
It does a good job at pointing out (aside from the name) that relational databases arent flawed or wrong, its just that these days people are starting to process more and more data in mainstream software and web sites, and that relational databases just wont scale for these needs.
I am building an intranet at my company.
I am interested in understanding how to load data that was stored in tables (Oracle, MySQL, SQL Server, Excel, Access, various random lists) and loading it into Neo4J, or some other graph database. Specifcally, what happens when common data overlaps existing data already in the system.
Yes, I know some data is best modeled in RDBMS, but I have this idea itching me, that when you need to superimpose several distinct tables, the graph model is better than the table structure.
For instance, I work in a manufacturing environment. There is a major project we are working on and because of the complexity, each department has created a seperate Excel spreadsheet that has a BOM (Bill Of Materials) hierarchy in a column on the left and then several columns of notes and checks made by individuals who made these sheets.
So one of the problems is merging all these notes together into one "view" so that someone can see all the issues that need to be addressed in any particular part.
The second problem is that an Excel spreadsheet sucks at representing a hierarchial BOM when a common component is used in more than one subassembly. Meaning that, if someone writes a note about the P34 relay in the ignition subassembly, the same comment should be associated with the P34 relays used in the motor driver subassembly. This won't occur in the excel spreadsheet.
For the company intranet, I want to be able to search for anything easily. Such as data related to a part number, a BOM structure, a phone number, an email address, a company policy, or procedure. I want to even extend this to manage computer hardware assets, and installed software.
I envision that once the information network starts to get populated you can start doing cool traversals such as "I want to write an email to everyone working on the XYZ project". People will have been associated with the project because they will be tagged as creating and modifying the data within the XYZ project. So by using the XYZ project as a search key, a huge set with everything related to the XYZ project will be created. Including links to people who built the XYZ project. The people links will connect to their email addresses. So by their involvement in the XYZ project, they will be included in my email. This is in stark contrast to some secretary trying to maintain a list of people work on the project. We generate a lot of lists. We spend a lot of time maintaining lists and making sure they are up to date. And most of it doesn't add any value to our products.
Another cool traversal could report all the computers that have a certain piece of software installed, by version. That report could be used to generate tasks to remove extra copies of old software and to update people who need to have the latest copy. It would also be useful for license tracking.
might be a bit late, but there is a growing number of projects using Neo4j, the better known ones listed at Neo4j . Also NeoTechnology, the company behind Neo4j, has some references at their customers page
Note: I am part of the Neo4j team
Here at work (a multi-billion dollar manufaturing company with a 12 person Windows development team) we are about to go to a single master database for all new applications and will have it broken up with schemas for what we normally would have had databases for before. There will also be a few common schemas with stuff like employee directory and branch directory and so on...
I'm still not sure how I feel about this move, but we're about to have a meeting on this in a few hours to discuss pros, cons, best practices, pitfalls and so on... so I'm looking for your thoughts on this... Is it good? Is it bad? What problems are we going to run into a year from now?
Any thoughts, tips, or advice is welcome. Thanks
EDIT
In response to a comment on this question, we are using SQL Server 2005 and we are actually talking about moving what would have been seperate databases on the same instance into a single database. The driving issue is the complete lack of referential integrity accross databases as the majority of our applications need access to common data such as an employee record, or branch information.
UPDATE
Several people requested that I update this question with the results from our meeting so here it is. We debated back and forth the pros and cons of doing this (I even showed them this question using the projector) and by the time we were done we had pretty much covered the pros and cons covered here. About half of us thought we could get it done with the right resources and commitment, and about half thought we couldn't do it (or that it wouldn't work out well). We decided to use some time with Microsoft to get their thoughts and platform specific advice. I will be sure to update this question and my blog after we've talked to them. Thanks for all the help and helpful answers.
Larger database are harder to maintain due to sheer size: backups take longer, disaster recovery is slower which in turn requires more often backups. You can address these by creating filegroups and using filegroup level backup in your maintenance plans and on crash recovery you can use the 'piecemeal restore' strategy to speed things up.
Proper use of filegroups will make most of the 'cons' cited by previous replies go away: they can distribute the I/O, they can sanitize your maintenance plans and backup/restore strategy, they offer availability by taking offline only the damaged portion of the the db in case of crash. So I'd say that while those 'cons' are legit concerns, they have can be mitigated by a proper deployment strategy. Its true though that these mitigation actions require a true, experienced, dba at the helm as they will go beyond the comfort zone of a developer turned dba by need.
Some of the pros I can think of quickly:
Consistency. You can have a backup-restore so that all data is consistent. Separate dbs don't allow this because you cannot coordinate a consistent set of backups unless you take them all offline, or make them r/o, during the backup.
Dirt cheap high availability: you can deploy database mirroring for disaster recoverability and high availability. Multiple databases have problems because one cannot coordinate a simultaneous failover and apps are faced with the dilemma of seeking each database current location.
Security. While most other posts see one database harder to secure, I'd say is easier to secure. Multiple databases seem harder to secure properly simply because what everyone does is they make one login and add it to that database db_owner group. Having one database will make things harder (unless you end up making everyone dbo, very bad) but once you start doing the right thing (granular access) then one db is not harder than multiple dbs, is actually easier because you won't have to copy/maintain some common groups/rights across multiple dbs.
Control. Will be easier to impose certain policies and good practices on a single db rather than multiple ones (no data access to developers, app data access only through execute rights on the schema to enforce procedures access etc).
There are also some cons I did not see in other posts:
This will be much harder to pull off that you think right now
Increase coupling between formerly separated applications will impose development restrictions: you can't simply alter your schema, you will have to coordinate it with the rest of the apps (you can argue that this was also the case before, but was brushed under the carpet by having separate dbs, and you're right)
Log writes that are now distributed across multiple db logs will be consolidated into one single log file. If your writes are significant, this may turn out to be a serious bottleneck and force you to buy some expensive fast drives for the new, consolidated, log file. In general this can be addresses by making the log drive a stripped array across as many stripes as needed to make it fast enough (usually raid 10).
GAM/SGAM/PFS allocations will also be consolidated, but again this will be alleviated by proper use of file groups.
Pros:
You only need to remember one connection string
When users report that access is slow, you know which DB is causing the trouble
Cons:
Backups of The One DB will take a long time and will get progressively longer over time.
Restoring data from a backup will get increasingly difficult.
Performance Tuning (SQL Profiler, Execution Plan estimation) for a feature for one app will slow down every app.
Restricting access to a single application's data is cumbersome if at all possible which will likely mean in practice that all devs and DBAs will be given keys to the ENTIRE kingdom.
New developers/DBAs have a much larger learning curve as they need to navigate a large and mostly useless (to them) database structure which means higher costs for training/ramp up.
When The One database goes down, everyone in your organization plays solitaire until it is restored.
Creating test instances for app development means copying your entire db
The only "Pro" I can think of is that all of your systems will be in the one database and therefore a single place to backup, store, etc. However, I would consider this to also be one of the biggest "Cons".
Some other general Cons:
Much harder to move an application to a different location/server in the future.
Possible locking issues if any applications make use of tempdb.
Possible unrelated performance degredation on one application when another application is being used.
Much harder to implement an application level security model if all tables are in the same database.
It sounds to me as though your company is transitioning between two completely distinct motives for using database technology. The first is application support. The second is data integration. If I'm right about this, the process will open up a huge can of worms, and many of the issues won't even be addressed by putting all the data in one big database.
Consider two of the points you made. The first is the complete lack of referential integrity across different databases. The second is the idea that each application will have its own schema. What this permits to happen is complete lack of referential integrity across schemas, putting you back in the quicksand you are in now.
Fixing the data so that referential integrity is present, and fixing the schemas so that referential integrity is enforced, and fixing the applications so that the applications agree with the new schemas will turn out to be a monumental task.
Here's what your company really needs to do: Have one single CONCEPTUAL database that contains all "enterprise data", and defined in such a way that both referential integrity and entity integrity are enforced. Revise existing schemas so that they conform to the CONCEPTUAL database except for data that is both purely local to that schema and undocumented in the unified conceptual database. Use constraints wherever needed to guarantee that the data covered by these schemas doesn't lose integrity.
Make the decision about whether these schemas belong in one database or many databases based on database administration, fail soft, security, and performance requirements and NOT on the need to integrate data. Whether you use one platform or multiple platforms is a separable decision.
Where necessary, maintain synchronized copies of the same data in separate databases. Include the overhead of doing this in your performance considerations above.
Document the conceptual database out the gazoo. Don't just settle for definitions of the FORM of data. Insist on definitions of the semantics of the data as well.
Notice that if you use ID fields instead of natural keys to enforce referential integrity, you will have to generate each ID field in one schema, and let the association between ID and dependent data propagate by means of synonyms, views, and synchronized replication.
This is not going to be easy.
If DB is getting bigger, making back-up is getting more difficult because of it's size.
This could mean a serious scalability problem if you want to add high-traffic applications in the future, since it is much easier to add new database servers which run seperate dbs than it is to parrallelize a single DB. At least in SQL Server.
Pros:
The convenience of having everything in one place
Thinking less about good database design
Cons:
Even unrelated things are in one place
Less thinking about good database design leading to poorly normalized data
To me this just sounds like laziness and a belief that all this "fancy ivory tower database stuff" is worthless.
I can see that being scary, but considering the number of businesses that use Oracle EBS, or SAP, or other systems that are, in essence, this same configuration, I don't see it being a Bad Thing™. It's a big move, and will be tough to get correct, but it can really improve integration across the enterprise in the long run.
I've never heard of this approach and would like to know how the meeting goes. I see no real benefit in combining multiple applications into a single database when the data doesn't relate to each other.
I'm thinking you might have issues if you decide that an application requires it's own database server at one point.
Ah, the old EggsInOneBasket design pattern. It's not a favourite.
You're just compounding any problems caused by damage to that database. Spread the risk!
For the referential integrity issue, you can make copies of those shared tables in the subsidiary databases. You can't use real replication, but what you do is deny everything but select on these to most users.
On the same server, you can either push or pull data from the official repository of the master data and insert any new rows/update any changed rows. You can even do this with a trigger in the master database (I don't recommend it, though).
If it's different instances or servers, you can use linked servers or SSIS.
You can put the common data into a "core" schema in each database. Then you can have tools to check that all your core tables in every subsidiary database are consistent. The worse that can happen is that an application is not seeing a new employee because the core isn't updated. And keeping your database separate gives you an ability to decouple and gives you maintenance windows. (You can even decouple and run "standalone" if your master is down for maintenance).
I expect you'll only be seeing a few dozen of these core entity tables in even a largish enterprise.
There are many other ways to solve the referential integrity (RI) issue. I am not as familiar with SQL Server as other DB's. In Informix you can use synonyms to point to objects in other DB's and use these for your RI. In Oracle you can make a DB links to one or more DB's to accomplish the same thing.
These approaches have the issue that if any of the DB's are down the RI will fail causing issues in the dependent DB's. selects would work, but inserts would fail.
Consolidation can be a good idea, depending upon the size of the schema's, and other issues with scalability. SQL Server has serious scalability issues. Other DB platforms allow horizontal scaling with either a share everything approach (Oracle's RAC, latest Informix release) or a partitioned share nothing approach (DB2's DPF, Informix XPS, Netezza, Teradata)
I am with some of the others here interested to hear the results of your meeting.
If you have to create an application like - let's say a blog application, creating the database schema is relatively simple. You have to create some tables, tblPosts, tblAttachments, tblCommets, tblBlaBla… and that's it (ok, i know, that's a bit simplified but you understand what i mean).
What if you have an application where you want to allow users to define parts of the schema at runtime. Let's say you want to build an application where users can log any kind of data. One user wants to log his working hours (startTime, endTime, project Id, description), the next wants to collect cooking recipes, others maybe stock quotes, the weekly weight of their babies, monthly expenses they spent for food, the results of their favorite football teams or whatever stuff you can think about.
How would you design a database to hold all that very very different kind of data? Would you create a generic schema that can hold all kind of data, would you create new tables reflecting the user data schema or do you have another great idea to do that?
If it's important: I have to use SQL Server / Entity Framework
Let's try again.
If you want them to be able to create their own schema, then why not build the schema using, oh, I dunno, the CREATE TABLE statment. You have a full boat, full functional, powerful database that can do amazing things like define schemas and store data. Why not use it?
If you were just going to do some ad-hoc properties, then sure.
But if it's "carte blanche, they can do whatever they want", then let them.
Do they have to know SQL? Umm, no. That's your UIs task. Your job as a tool and application designer is to hide the implementation from the user. So present lists of fields, lines and arrows if you want relationships, etc. Whatever.
Folks have been making "end user", "simple" database tools for years.
"What if they want to add a column?" Then add a column, databases do that, most good ones at least. If not, create the new table, copy the old data, drop the old one.
"What if they want to delete a column?" See above. If yours can't remove columns, then remove it from the logical view of the user so it looks like it's deleted.
"What if they have eleventy zillion rows of data?" Then they have a eleventy zillion rows of data and operations take eleventy zillion times longer than if they had 1 row of data. If they have eleventy zillion rows of data, they probably shouldn't be using your system for this anyway.
The fascination of "Implementing databases on databases" eludes me.
"I have Oracle here, how can I offer less features and make is slower for the user??"
Gee, I wonder.
There's no way you can predict how complex their data requirements will be. Entity-Attribute-Value is one typical solution many programmers use, but it might be be sufficient, for instance if the user's data would conventionally be modeled with multiple tables.
I'd serialize the user's custom data as XML or YAML or JSON or similar semi-structured format, and save it in a text BLOB.
You can even create inverted indexes so you can look up specific values among the attributes in your BLOB. See http://bret.appspot.com/entry/how-friendfeed-uses-mysql (the technique works in any RDBMS, not just MySQL).
Also consider using a document store such as Solr or MongoDB. These technologies do not need to conform to relational database conventions. You can add new attributes to any document at runtime, without needing to redefine the schema. But it's a tradeoff -- having no schema means your app can't depend on documents/rows being similar throughout the collection.
I'm a critic of the Entity-Attribute-Value anti-pattern.
I've written about EAV problems in my book, SQL Antipatterns Volume 1: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming.
Here's an SO answer where I list some problems with Entity-Attribute-Value: "Product table, many kinds of products, each product has many parameters."
Here's a blog I posted the other day with some more discussion of EAV problems: "EAV FAIL."
And be sure to read this blog "Bad CaRMa" about how attempting to make a fully flexible database nearly destroyed a company.
I would go for a Hybrid Entity-Attribute-Value model, so like Antony's reply, you have EAV tables, but you also have default columns (and class properties) which will always exist.
Here's a great article on what you're in for :)
As an additional comment, I knocked up a prototype for this approach using Linq2Sql in a few days, and it was a workable solution. Given that you've mentioned Entity Framework, I'd take a look at version 4 and their POCO support, since this would be a good way to inject a hybrid EAV model without polluting your EF schema.
On the surface, a schema-less or document-oriented database such as CouchDB or SimpleDB for the custom user data sounds ideal. But I guess that doesn't help much if you can't use anything but SQL and EF.
I'm not familiar with the Entity Framework, but I would lean towards the Entity-Attribute-Value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-Attribute-Value_model) database model.
So, rather than creating tables and columns on the fly, your app would create attributes (or collections of attributes) and then your end users would complete the values.
But, as I said, I don't know what the Entity Framework is supposed to do for you, and it may not let you take this approach.
Not as a critical comment, but it may help save some of your time to point out that this is one of those Don Quixote Holy Grail type issues. There's an eternal quest for probably over 50 years to make a user-friendly database design interface.
The only quasi-successful ones that have gained any significant traction that I can think of are 1. Excel (and its predecessors), 2. Filemaker (the original, not its current flavor), and 3. (possibly, but doubtfully) Access. Note that the first two are limited to basically one table.
I'd be surprised if our collective conventional wisdom is going to help you break the barrier. But it would be wonderful.
Rather than re-implement sqlservers "CREATE TABLE" statement, which was done many years ago by a team of programmers who were probably better than you or I, why not work on exposing SQLSERVER in a limited way to the users -- let them create thier own schema in a limited way and leverage the power of SQLServer to do it properly.
I would just give them a copy of SQL Server Management Studio, and say, "go nuts!" Why reinvent a wheel within a wheel?
Check out this post you can do it but it's a lot of hard work :) If performance is not a concern an xml solution could work too though that is also alot of work.
In a database-centric application that is designed for multiple clients, I've always thought it was "better" to use a single database for ALL clients - associating records with proper indexes and keys. In listening to the Stack Overflow podcast, I heard Joel mention that FogBugz uses one database per client (so if there were 1000 clients, there would be 1000 databases). What are the advantages of using this architecture?
I understand that for some projects, clients need direct access to all of their data - in such an application, it's obvious that each client needs their own database. However, for projects where a client does not need to access the database directly, are there any advantages to using one database per client? It seems that in terms of flexibility, it's much simpler to use a single database with a single copy of the tables. It's easier to add new features, it's easier to create reports, and it's just easier to manage.
I was pretty confident in the "one database for all clients" method until I heard Joel (an experienced developer) mention that his software uses a different approach -- and I'm a little confused with his decision...
I've heard people cite that databases slow down with a large number of records, but any relational database with some merit isn't going to have that problem - especially if proper indexes and keys are used.
Any input is greatly appreciated!
Assume there's no scaling penalty for storing all the clients in one database; for most people, and well configured databases/queries, this will be fairly true these days. If you're not one of these people, well, then the benefit of a single database is obvious.
In this situation, benefits come from the encapsulation of each client. From the code perspective, each client exists in isolation - there is no possible situation in which a database update might overwrite, corrupt, retrieve or alter data belonging to another client. This also simplifies the model, as you don't need to ever consider the fact that records might belong to another client.
You also get benefits of separability - it's trivial to pull out the data associated with a given client ,and move them to a different server. Or restore a backup of that client when the call up to say "We've deleted some key data!", using the builtin database mechanisms.
You get easy and free server mobility - if you outscale one database server, you can just host new clients on another server. If they were all in one database, you'd need to either get beefier hardware, or run the database over multiple machines.
You get easy versioning - if one client wants to stay on software version 1.0, and another wants 2.0, where 1.0 and 2.0 use different database schemas, there's no problem - you can migrate one without having to pull them out of one database.
I can think of a few dozen more, I guess. But all in all, the key concept is "simplicity". The product manages one client, and thus one database. There is never any complexity from the "But the database also contains other clients" issue. It fits the mental model of the user, where they exist alone. Advantages like being able to doing easy reporting on all clients at once, are minimal - how often do you want a report on the whole world, rather than just one client?
Here's one approach that I've seen before:
Each customer has a unique connection string stored in a master customer database.
The database is designed so that everything is segmented by CustomerID, even if there is a single customer on a database.
Scripts are created to migrate all customer data to a new database if needed, and then only that customer's connection string needs to be updated to point to the new location.
This allows for using a single database at first, and then easily segmenting later on once you've got a large number of clients, or more commonly when you have a couple of customers that overuse the system.
I've found that restoring specific customer data is really tough when all the data is in the same database, but managing upgrades is much simpler.
When using a single database per customer, you run into a huge problem of keeping all customers running at the same schema version, and that doesn't even consider backup jobs on a whole bunch of customer-specific databases. Naturally restoring data is easier, but if you make sure not to permanently delete records (just mark with a deleted flag or move to an archive table), then you have less need for database restore in the first place.
To keep it simple. You can be sure that your client is only seeing their data. The client with fewer records doesn't have to pay the penalty of having to compete with hundreds of thousands of records that may be in the database but not theirs. I don't care how well everything is indexed and optimized there will be queries that determine that they have to scan every record.
Well, what if one of your clients tells you to restore to an earlier version of their data due to some botched import job or similar? Imagine how your clients would feel if you told them "you can't do that, since your data is shared between all our clients" or "Sorry, but your changes were lost because client X demanded a restore of the database".
As for the pain of upgrading 1000 database servers at once, some fairly simple automation should take care of that. As long as each database maintains an identical schema, then it won't really be an issue. We also use the database per client approach, and it works well for us.
Here is an article on this exact topic (yes, it is MSDN, but it is a technology independent article): http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479086.aspx.
Another discussion of multi-tenancy as it relates to your data model here: http://www.ayende.com/Blog/archive/2008/08/07/Multi-Tenancy--The-Physical-Data-Model.aspx
Scalability. Security. Our company uses 1 DB per customer approach as well. It also makes code a bit easier to maintain as well.
In regulated industries such as health care it may be a requirement of one database per customer, possibly even a separate database server.
The simple answer to updating multiple databases when you upgrade is to do the upgrade as a transaction, and take a snapshot before upgrading if necessary. If you are running your operations well then you should be able to apply the upgrade to any number of databases.
Clustering is not really a solution to the problem of indices and full table scans. If you move to a cluster, very little changes. If you have have many smaller databases to distribute over multiple machines you can do this more cheaply without a cluster. Reliability and availability are considerations but can be dealt with in other ways (some people will still need a cluster but majority probably don't).
I'd be interested in hearing a little more context from you on this because clustering is not a simple topic and is expensive to implement in the RDBMS world. There is a lot of talk/bravado about clustering in the non-relational world Google Bigtable etc. but they are solving a different set of problems, and lose some of the useful features from an RDBMS.
There are a couple of meanings of "database"
the hardware box
the running software (e.g. "the oracle")
the particular set of data files
the particular login or schema
It's likely Joel means one of the lower layers. In this case, it's just a matter of software configuration management... you don't have to patch 1000 software servers to fix a security bug, for example.
I think it's a good idea, so that a software bug doesn't leak information across clients. Imagine the case with an errant where clause that showed me your customer data as well as my own.