I am administering a rather large database that has grown in complexity and design from a single application database. Now there is a plan to add a fifth application that carries with it its own schema and specific data. I have been researching SSO solutions but that is not really what I am after. My goal is to have one point of customer registration, logins and authorization.
Ideally, each application would request authentication and be given authorization to multiple applications, where the applications would then connect to the appropriate database for operations. I do not have first hand experience dealing with this degree of separation as the one database has been churning flawlessly for years. Any best practice papers would be appreciated :)
I would envision a core database that maintained shared data - Customer/Company/Products
Core tables and primary Keys –To maintain referential integrity should I have a smaller replicated table in each “application” database. What are some ways to share keys among various databases and ensure referential integrity?
Replication – Two subscribers currently pull data from the production database where data is later batched into a DW solution for reporting. Am I going down a road that can lead to frustration?
Data integrity – How can I ensure for example that:
DATABASE_X.PREFERENCES.USER_ID =always references a= CORE_DATABASE.USERS.USER_ID
Reporting – What type of hurdles would I cross to replicate/transform data from multiple databases into one reporting database?
White Papers - Can anyone find good refernces to this strategy in practice?
Thanks
A few urls for you. Scale out implementations can vary wildly to suit requirements but hopefully these can help you.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqlcat/archive/2008/06/12/sql-server-scale-out.aspx
this one is 2005 centric but is VERY good
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479364.aspx#scaloutsql_topic4
this one a good solution for reporting...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms345584.aspx
given you an analysis services one too :)
http://sqlcat.com/whitepapers/archive/2010/06/08/scale-out-querying-for-analysis-services-with-read-only-databases.aspx
I created something like this a few years ago using views and stored procedures to bring in the data from the Master database into the subordinate databases. This would allow you to fairly easily join those master tables into the other subordinate tables.
Have you looked into using RAC? You can have multiple physical databases but only one logical database. This would solve all of your integrity issues. And you can set aside nodes just for reporting.
Don't throw out the idea of having separate applications and linking the logon/off functions via webservice (esque) requests. I have seen billing/user registration systems separated in this way. Though at extremely large scales, this might not be a good idea.
Related
We're building an application that has a database (yeah, pretty exciting huh :). The database is mainly transactional (to support the app) and also does a bit of "reporting" as part of the app - but nothing too strenuous.
Above and beyond that we have some reporting requirements - but they're pretty vague and high-level at the moment. We have a standard reporting tool that we-use in-house which we'll use to do the "heavier" reporting as the requirements solidify.
My question is: how do you know when a separate database for reporting is required?
What sort of questions need to be asked? What sort of things would make you decide a separate reporting database was necessary?
In general, the more mission critical the transactional app and the more sophisticated the reporting requirements, the more splitting makes sense.
When transaction performance is critical.
When it's hard to get a maintenance window on the transactional app.
If reporting needs to correlate results not only from this app, but from other application silos.
If the reports need to support trending or other types of reporting that are best suited for a star schema/Business Intelligence environment.
If the reports are long running.
If the transactional app is on an expensive hardware resource (cluster, mainframe, etc.)
If you need to do data cleansing/extract-transform-load operations on the transactional data (e.g., state names to canonical state abbreviations).
It adds non-trivial complexity, so imo, there has to be a good reason to split.
Typically, I would try to report off the transactional database initially.
Ensure that any indexes you add to facilitate efficient reporting are all frequently used. The more indexes you add, the poorer performance is going to be on inserts and (if you alter keys) updates.
When you do go to a reporting database, remember there are only a few reasons you are going there:
Ultimately, the number one thing about reporting databases is that you are removing locking contention from the OLTP database. So if your reporting database is a straight copy of the same database, you're simply using delayed snapshots which won't interfere with production transactions.
Next, you can have a separate indexing strategy to support the reporting usage scenarios. These extra indexes are OK to maintain in the reporting database, but would cause unnecessary overhead in the OLTP database.
Now both the above could be done on the same server (even the same instance in a separate database or even just in a separate schema) and still see benefits. When CPU and IO are completely pegged, at that point, you definitely need to have it on a completely separate box (or upgrade your single box).
Finally, for ultimate reporting flexibility, you denormalize the data (usually into a dimensional model or star schemas) so that the reporting database is the same data in a different model. Reporting of large amounts of data (particularly aggregates) is extremely fast in dimensional models because the star schemas are very efficient for that. It also is efficient for a larger variety of queries without a lot of re-indexing or analysis to change indexes, because the dimensional model lends itself better to unforeseen usage patterns (the old "slice and dice every which way" request). You could view this is a kind of mini-data warehouse where you use data warehousing techniques, but aren't necessarily implementing a full-blown data warehouse. Also, star schemas are particular easy for users to get to grips with, and data dictionaries are much simpler and easier to build for BI tools or reporting tools from star schemas. You could do this on the same box or different box etc, just like discussed earlier.
This question requires experience rather than science.
As a BI architect, the approach I take on designing each BI solution for my clients are very different. I don't go through a checklist. It requires a general understanding of their system, their reporting requirements, budget and man power.
I personally prefer to keep the reporting processes as much as possible on the database side (Best practice in BI world). REPORTING TOOLS ARE FOR DISPLAYING PURPOSE ONLY (MAXIMUM FOR SMALL CALCULATIONS). This approach requires a lot of pre-processing of data which requires different staging tables, triggers and etc.
When you said:
I work on projects with hundreds of millions of rows with real time reporting along with hundreds of users accessing the application/database at the same time with out issue.
There are a few things wrong with your statement.
Hundreds of millions of rows are A LOT. even today's in memory tools like Cognos TM1 or Qlikview would struggle to get such a results. (look at SAP HANA from SAP to understand how giants in the industry handle it).
If you have Hundreds of millions of rows in database, it doesn't necessarily mean that the report needs to go through all those records. maybe the report worked on 1000s not millions. probably that's what you saw.
Transactional reports are very different than dashboards. Most dashboard tools pre-processing and cache the data.
My point is that it all comes to experience for deciding when to:
design a new schema
create a semantic database
work on the same transactional database
or even use a reporting tool (Sometimes handwritten dashboards with Java/JSF/Ajax/jQuery or JSP would work fine for client)
The main reason you would need a separate database for reporting issues is when the generation of the reports interferes with the transactional responsibilities of the app. E.g. if a report takes 20 minutes to generate and utilizes 100% of the CPU/Disk/etc... during a time of high activity you might think of using a separate database for reporting.
As for questions, here are some basic one:
Can I do the high intensity reports during non-peak hours?
Does it interfere with the users using the system?
If yes to #2, what are the costs of the interference Vs the cost of another database server, refactoring code, etc...?
I would also add another reason for which you might use a reporting database, and that is: CQRS pattern (Command Query Responsibility Separation).
If you have a large number of users accessing and writing to a small set of data, you would do wise to consider this pattern. It basicly, in its simplest form, means that all your commands (Create, Update, Delete) are pushed to the transactional database.
All of your queries (Read) are from your reporting database. This lets you freely scopy your architecture and upgrade function.
There are MUCH more to it in the pattern, I just mentioned the bit which was interesting due to your question regarding reporting database.
Basically, when the database load from the app becomes incompatible with the database load for reporting. This could be due to:
Reporting consuming inordinate amount of database server resources impacting the app's DB performance.
A part of this category would be the app DB work having to wait on a majorly slow report query due to locking, though it might be possible to resolve with less drastic methods like locking tuning.
Reporting queries being very incompatible with app queries as far as tuning (e.g. indices but not limited to that) - the most dumb example would be something like a hot spot affecting app inserts because of the reporting-purpose index.
Timing issues. E.g. the only small windows for DB maintenance available (due to application usage) are the times of heavy reporting work
Reporting data's sheer volume (e.g. logging, auditing, statistics) is so big that your primary DB server architecture is a bad solution for such reporting (see Sybase ASE vs. Sybase IQ). BTW, this is a real scenario - we moved our performance reporting to IQ because of this.
I would also add that transactional databases are meant to hold current state and oftentimes do so to be self-maintaining. You don't want transactional databases growing beyond their necessary means. When a workflow or transaction is complete then move that data out and into a Reporting database, which is much better designed to hold historical data.
There is a web application which is in production mode for 3 years or so by now. Historically, because of different reasons there was made a decision to use database-per customer installation.
Now we came across the fact that now deployments are very slow.
Should we ever consider moving all the databases back to single one to reduce environment complexity? Or is it too risky idea?
The problem I see now is that it's very hard to merge these databases with saving referential integrity(primary keys of different database' tables can not be obviously differentiated).
Databases are not that much big, so we don't have much benefits of reduced load by having multiple databases.
Your question is quite broad.
a) Ensure that merged databases don't suffer from degraded performance with things like JOIN statements when, say, 1000 databases are merged even though each is small. As for your referential integrity ... which I assume is auto_increment based ... you can replace these relationships by altering the schema and supplanting UUID or a similar unique, non-sequential value. Or even a surrogate key pair in addition to your auto increment PK.
b) Do benchmarking to ensure your application would respond within performance limits
c) Is there a direct ROI for doing this? What are the long term cost benefits vs the expense of migration? Is the decreased complexity worth increased (if any) cost?
d) How does this impact your backup and disaster recovery plans? Does it make them cheaper? Slower? More expensive?
Abstraction and management tools approach:
if it were me, depending on the situation, I would keep the scalability that comes with per-client sharding and create a set of management tools to abstractly create one virtual database. Using these tools you can acquire the simplified management without loosing technical flexibility. I suspect you want to simplify the cost of managing all these databases (based on your deployment statement). Creating a 'control panel' for your farm can be a good way to simplify a complex system (especially when deployments may use different schema versions).
For the migrated data... customer one database UUIDs can start with 10000000, Customer two database UUIDs can start with 20000000. Customer three database UUIDs can start with 30000000.....
In my opinion when you host the database for your customers, a single database that handles multiple customers is a better idea overall. Of course you need to add a "customers" table to record the customers, and a "customer_id" column on all top-level data that is within the table, and include checks in all your SQL to ensure the customer's view is limited to their own data.
I'd set up a new database with the additional columns, and then test it with a dummy customer or three for a while to ensure all bugs are wiped out. Then I'd migrate all the customers across, one by one, doing checks that the data will fit.
I am working with a half dozen DBs. The DBs all have the same schemas, the same SPs, etc. Speaking to the person who originally designed the DBs, a big part of the motivation for using many DBs was efficiency; the alternative would be to add a column to pretty much every table and sp in the database indicating which set of data was being worked in, resulting in one giant (and thus slower) DB instead of several samll DBs. In place of having a column to indicate which set of data is being queried, the connection string is used to select which database is being hit.
The only reason I really dislike this organization is that it involves a lot of code duplication and thus hurts maintenance. For example, every time I wish to change a stored procedure, I need to run the alter statement on every database.
One solution I have considered is to combine all of the data into one big database, adding an extra column all over the place to indicate which database the data would be in if I had not combined it. Then, I could partition all of the tables by this column's value. In theory, the result of all of this is that the underlying representation of all of the data itself will be morally the same as it is now, but without the redundancies in the indexes, schemas, SPs, etc.
My questions are this:
Is this a good idea? Is there a better way to accomplish this?
Are there any gotchas in doing this?
Will this have any impact on performance?
Everyone will deal with this at some point. My own personal opinion is that multiple databases are a pain in the backside and are not faster. They are a pain because of the maintenance headaches. Adding an extra column in each table as necessary will not slow your process done that much, if indexing is set properly. And your maintenance will be much easier. Plus, doing transactions across multiple DB's can be a hassle and involve MTC.
BTW, using a single database is often called a multi-tenant database. You might want to research this a bit. But I would avoid multiple DB's like this if possible.
I'm of a different mind than Randy.
The multi-tenant model has its advantages.
For one, maintenance is not really much different whether you have 5 databases or 500. At some point you stop looking at maintenance of individual databases and look at the set. Yes you must serialize backups and you can't be performing index reorg/rebuild across all databases at once.
But for code changes across multiple more-or-less identical databases, there are easy ways to script a lot of things to be done to multiple databases without really lifting an extra finger. I use a tool called SQLFarms Combine (now sold by JNetDirect), but there are other offerings such as RedGate MultiScript that I haven't played with.
What I like most about the multi-tenant model is that when you grow and scale and suddenly need a new database server, it is very easy to move one of the tenants (say, the busiest or fastest growing) to the new server. If everybody is jammed into the same database, this extraction of only their data becomes quite difficult, especially if there is to be minimized downtime. In the multi-tenant model, you can set up mirroring for just their database, and then switch the primary when you're ready.
I'd be in favor of combining these databases. There are other facilities built into SQL Server to account for the potential performance downfalls of a very large database, like additional indexing on a second physical disk, partitioning, clustering, etc. The headache and overhead involved in deploying schema updates to that many different databases can be time consuming when it's easily handled in a single database. I think SQL Server scales really well in cases like this - let the database server do what it's designed to do and provide responsive access to your data. You can focus on application design and leave the storage model to SQL Server.
Also, though this isn't mentioned above, I'd suspect that there's some level of dynamic SQL involved in the applications that use this "many database" model because you've got to switch between databases based on something you know, so it can't be hard coded into the application or in a configuration file, meaning that either connection strings or actual SQL statements have to be generated on the fly, and that can be a really big security risk (read about "SQL Injection" if you're unfamiliar with the potential risks of dynamic SQL).
Note: I have no intention of implementing this, it's more of a thought experiment.
Suppose I had multiple services available through a web interface. At least two of which required user registration and some data in a database. A single registration would grant access to all services. Like Google (GMail, Google Docs, etc.).
Would all of these services, which are related to registered users, be located within a single database, perhaps with table-prefixes for what service they were for?
Or would each service have it's own database? The only plus I can see to doing this is that it would make table names cleaner. Any time any user interaction would be needed, interacting with at least two different databases would be needed, which would needlessly complicate sql queries.
Would this suggest that the 'big boys' use only a single database, and load it with tons of different (and perhaps completely unrelated) tables?
If you use the right DBMS, you can have the best of both strategies. In PostgreSQL, within a 'database' you can have separate schemas. The authentication service would access a single schema and provide the other services a key which is used as a reference for data in the other schemas. You can still deal with the entire database as a single entity i.e:
query across schemas without using dblink
store personally identifiable information separately (schemas can have separate per-user permissions to further protect data)
DBMS managed foreign key constrains (I believe)
consistent (re the data) backup and restore
You get these advantages at the cost of a more complex DAL (may not be supported by your favorite DAL framework) and less portability between DBMS's.
I do not think it is a good idea to make multiple services dependent on a single database. If you need to restore some service from a backup, you'll have to restore all.
You are overloading a database server probably too.
I would do that only if it is likely they will share much data at future point.
Also you might consider smaller database with only the shared user data.
I would consider having 1 user / role repository with a separate database for services.
I've never done this, but I think it would depend on performance. If there's almost no overhead to do separate databases, that might be the answer. Doing separate DBs may also make it easy to split DBs across machines.
Complexity is also an issue. Hopefully your schema would be defined in such a way that you wouldn't need to dip into several different databases for different queries.
There's always a problem with potentially overloading databases and access thereof; replication is one potential good solution.
There are several strategies.
When you move to multiple databases (or multiple servers), things get more complex. Your core user information could be in a single database. The individual services could be in other databases. The problem with that is that the database is the outer unit of referential integrity, so you cannot design in foreign keys across databases. One way around this is to distribute changes to the core master tables (additions and updates only, obviously, since deletions would be forbidden due to a foreign-key constraint) to separate databases on a regular basis, and then enforce RI against these copies of the core master database tables within the service databases. This also means that the service databases and their services can run while the other databases are down for maintenance. Obviously this is an increased architectural complexity for an improvement to your service windows and reduced coupling.
I would recommend starting with a single database. If your RDBMS supports it, I would organize components according to SCHEMAs which would allow you to at least maintain a logical separation by design. You can more easily refactor later.
Many databases have tables which can be considered unrelated. Sometimes in a system you have multiple entity networks that hardly connect (sometimes not at all). You can use SCHEMAs in these cases too.
It seems like the goal of a lot of ORM tools and custom data access layers (DAO pattern, etc.) is to abstract the database to the point where you could supposedly swap out the entire database system with minimal work.
Following the common DAL patterns is usually a good idea in code, but it seems like it would never be minimal work to swap out a database. (Cost, training, data migration, etc.)
Does anyone have any experience with swapping out one database for another in a large system, and dealing with the implications in code? Is it worth it to worry about abstracting the actual database from your code?
Question 1: Does anyone have any experience with
swapping out one database for another
in a large system, and dealing with
the implications in code?
Yes we tried it. Our customer is using a large MS Access based Delphi client server application. After about five years we considered switching to SQL Server. We analyzed the problem and concluded that swapping the database would be very costly and provide only a few advantages. Customer decided not to swap the database. The application is still running fine and the customer is still happy.
Note that:
MS Access is only being used for data storage and report generation.
The server application ensures that MS Access is only being accessed on the server. Normal multi-user MS Access applications will transfer large chunks of the Access database over the network - resulting in slow and unreliable database functionality. This is not the case for this application. Client <> Server <> MS Access. Only the server application communicates with the MS Access database. Actually the Server has exclusive access to the MS Access database. No other computer can open to the MS Access database. Conclusion: MS Access is being used as a true RDBMS, Relational DataBase Management System - please no flaming about MS Access being inferior and unstable - it has been running fine for more than 10 years.
The most important issues you will have to consider:
SQL statements: (SELECT, UPDATE, DELETE, INSERT, CREATE TABLE) and make sure they would be compatible with the SQL database. It's amazing how much all the RDBMS differ in the details (date formats, number formats, search formats, string formats, join syntax, create table syntax, stored procedures, user defined functions, (auto) primary keys, etc.)
Report generation: Depending on your database you might be using a different reporting tool. Our customer has over 200 complex reports. Converting all these reports is very time consuming.
Performance: all RDBMS have different performances in different environments. Normally performance optimalisations are very much RDBMS dependent.
Costs: the costs of tools, developers, server and user licenses varies greatly. It ranges from free to very expensive. Free does not mean cheap and expensive does not always equate to good. A cost/value comparison will have to be made.
Experience: making the best use of your RDBMS requires experience. If you have to develop for an "unknown" RDBMS your productivity will suffer.
Question 2: Is it worth it to worry about
abstracting the actual database from
your code?
Yes. In an ideal world, swapping a database would just be adjusting the data connection string. In the real world this is not possible because all databases are different. They all have tables and SQL support but the differences are in the details. If you can keep the differences of the databases shielded through abstraction - please do so. Make a list of the databases you need to support. Check the selected database systems for the differences. Provide centralized code to handle the differences. Support one RDBMS and provide stubs for future support of other RDBMS.
I disagree that the purpose is to be able to swap out databases, and I think you are correct in showing some suspicion about ORMs leading towards that goal.
However, I would still use an ORM, as it abstracts away the details of data access. Isn't this the goal of object oriented programming? Keep your concerns separated.
I think the primary use case for database abstraction (via ORM tools) is to be able to ship a product that works with multiple database brands. I believe it's a rarer occurrence for a company to switch between database vendors, but that's still one of the use cases.
I've worked jobs where we started out using MySQL for monetary reasons (think a startup) and, one we started making money, wanted to switch to Oracle. We didn't end up making the switch, but it was nice to have the option.
Still, ORM tools are not a completely leak-less abstractions and I know our migration still would have been painful and costly. It totally depends on what you are building, but it has been my experience that -- for performance reasons, usually -- you end up either working around your ORM solution or exploiting vendor-specific features at some point.
The only time I've seen a database switch was from HSQL during early development to Oracle as the project progressed. The ORM made this easy.
I often use the DAO pattern to swap out data services (from a database to web service or to swap a web service to a test stub).
For ORM I don't think the goal is to enable you to switch databases - it is to hide you from the complexities of different database implementations and removing the need to worry about the fine details of translating from relational to object represenations of your data.
By having someone smart write an ORM that handles caching, only updates fields that have changed, groups updates, etc I don't need to. Although in the cases where I need something special I can still revert to SQL if I want.