I have two separate SQL Server 2005 databases (on the same server)
security database
main application database
The security database has a user table with everything needed to authenticate. -
The application database has a person table with extended user details. There is a 1-1 mapping between the security database user table and the application database person table.
I want to enforce a mapping between the user and the person table. I'm assuming that foreign keys can't be mapped across databases thus I am wondering what to do to enforce the integrity of the relationship.
Cross database foreign keys are indeed not supported
Msg 1763, Level 16, State 0, Line 2
Cross-database foreign key references are not supported.
If you really want to enforce the referential integrity on the database side you will have to rely on triggers. (which I don't recommend)
to make your code more maintainable you could create synonyms for the tables you want to check referential integrity on.
CREATE SYNONYM myTable FOR otherdatabase.dbo.myTable;
This would be to make the "manual" checks easier, as you can not create foreign keys on a synonym.
It's a lot of work but you may think about merging those two databases into a single database. If you want a logical difference between objects within the database, you can use a schema.
Related
Can I implement symmetricDS in identical databases?
My scenerio
I have to databases:
Database A
Database B
Whatever data change happens in either one of them should reflect in the other:
Current situation:
Even though the DB are identical, database B have less tables that database A
Consider a table tableA from database A and same table in database B
But pk id for same records are actually different in two tables
Can i expand and implement symmetricDS if i want to expand to a third database
Currently i am using a mapping table and API to handle datasync.
Can i move to symmetricDS for syncing data
Yes, go ahead
SymemtricDs allows for bidirectional synchronization of databases
Only the tables of database B will be configured for synchronization. The extra tables from database A might be added to the mix using table transformation.
As long as there are constraints of uniqueness on columns in, for example, database A that are PKs in database B that will not be a problem.
You can add as many types and instances of those types of databases. Bear in mind that the graph of database relationships must satisfy the definition of a tree.
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.
I have a db (SQL Server 2008R2) and some common tables have to be moved out into another db because are going to be dictionary data for many clients. For compatibility reason is easy to have them in one place.
I can use synonyms, I tried and works!. My problem is about foreign keys, SQL Server does not support cross database foreign keys.
I can use triggers but is risky... is there any other workaround for this?
What's the best practice for handling primary keys using an ORM over Oracle or SQL Server?
Oracle - Should I use a sequence and a trigger or let the ORM handle this? Or is there some other way ?
SQL Server - Should I use the identifier data type or somehow else ?
If you are using any kind of ORM, I would suggest you to let it handle your primary keys generation. In SQL Server and Oracle.
With either database, I would use a client-generated Guid for the primary key (which would map to uniqueidentifier in SQL Server, or RAW(20) in Oracle). Despite the performance penalty on JOINs when using a Guid foreign key, I tend to work with disconnected clients and replicated databases, so being able to generate unique IDs on the client is a must. Guid IDs also have advantages when working with an ORM, as they simplify your life considerably.
It is a good idea to remember that databases tend to have a life independent from a front end application. Records can be inserted by batch processes, web services, data exchange with other databases, heck, even different applications sharing the same database.
Consequently it is useful if a database table is in charge of its own identify, or at least has that capability. For instance, in Oracle a BEFORE INSERT trigger can check whether a value has been provided for its primary key, and if not generate its own.
Both Oracle and SQL Server can generate GUIDs, so that is not a sufficient reason for delegating identity generation to the client.
Sometimes, there is a natural, unique identifier for a table. For instance, each row in a User table can be uniquely identified by the UserName column. In that case, it may be best to use UserName as the primary key.
Also, consider tables used to form a many to many relationship. A UserGroupMembership table will contain UserId and GroupId columns, which should be the primary key, as the combination uniquely identifies the fact that a particular user is a member of a particular group.
I've just come across something disturbing, I was trying to implement transactional replication from a database whose design is not under our control . This replication was in order to perform reporting without taxing the system too much. Upon trying the replication only some of the tables went across.
On investigation tables were not selected to be replicated because they don't have a primary key, I thought this cannot be it is even shown as a primary key if I use ODBC and ms access but not in management studio. Also the queries are not ridiculously slow.
I tried inserting a duplicate record and it failed saying about a unique index(not a primary key). Seems to be the tables have been implemented using a unique index as oppose to a primary key. Why I do not know I could scream.
Is there anyway to perform transactional replication or an alternative, it needs to be live (last minute or two). The main db server is currently sql 2000 sp3a and the reporting server 2005.
The only thing I have currently thought of trying is setting the replication up as if it is another type of database. I believe replication to say oracle is possible would this force the use of say an ODBC driver like I assume access is using hence showing a primary key. I don't know if that is accurate out of my depth on this.
As MSDN states, it is not possible to create a transactional replication on tables without primary keys. You could use Merge replication (one way), that doesn't require a primary key, and it automatically creates a rowguid column if it doesn't exist:
Merge replication uses a globally
unique identifier (GUID) column to
identify each row during the merge
replication process. If a published
table does not have a uniqueidentifier
column with the ROWGUIDCOL property
and a unique index, replication adds
one. Ensure that any SELECT and INSERT
statements that reference published
tables use column lists. If a table is
no longer published and replication
added the column, the column is
removed; if the column already
existed, it is not removed.
Unfortunately, you will have a performance penalty if using merge replication.
If you need to use replication for reporting only, and you don't need the data to be exactly the same as on the publisher, then you could consider snapshot replication also