We are encountering strange hibernate behavior with hbm2ddl.auto set to update.
In our test setup, we have two database users, one containing the tables for our beta application, the other one is mainly used for development. I.e. same table names with different users.
When new tables are to be created, we do so by using hbm2ddl.auto=update.
Now suddenly the strange behavior is: the update process looks for existing tables with the wrong user and creates those not found with the right user.
E.g. if the following tables exists
USER_A.TABLE_1
USER_B.TABLE_2
and we update with three tables configured: TABLE_1, TABLE_2, TABLE_3 using USER_B, we end up with
USER_A.TABLE_1
USER_B.TABLE_2
USER_B.TABLE_3
TABLE_1 is not created for USER_B. After renaming USER_A.TABLE_1 to USER_A.TABLE_0 and updating again we end up with the expected result:
USER_A.TABLE_0
USER_B.TABLE_1
USER_B.TABLE_2
USER_B.TABLE_3
Does this make any sense to anyone? Is there something like an internal hibernate cache remembering like "Hey I have already created this table on this server (and I do not care about the user)".
We have spent quite some testing to reassure this is not a configuration problem, reproduced this on different machines, different configurations, from ant or using the IDE, making sure USER_A's password cannot be found anywhere in the build directory etc. So we are 100% sure, the behavior is as described - but we are completely out of ideas what happens.
I'd be very happy to hear your ideas about this, since this problem is nagging for some time now.
Thanks a lot,
Peter
Is there something like an internal hibernate cache remembering like "Hey I have already created this table on this server (and I do not care about the user)".
No. What is probably happening is that USER_A can see the tables created under USER_B account, and vice-versa. It's not clear which database you are using, but I would try to configure Hibernate to use two different schemas, in addition to use just different users. You may also want to try to set the property "hibernate.default_schema", but I'm not sure that this only will solve your problem.
Related
Some colleagues were using an Excel file to keep track of some issues, and they have decided to switch to a better system, asking me to setup a Jira project for them and to import all the tickets. A way or the other I have done everything, but the resolution date is now wrong, because it's the one of when I ran the script to import them into Jira. They would like to have the original one, so that they can know when an issue was really fixed. Unfortunately there's no way to change it from Jira's interface, so I have to access the DB directly. The command, for the record, is like:
update jiraissue
set RESOLUTIONDATE = "2015-02-16 14:48:40"
where pkey = "OV001-1";
Now, low-level writes to a database in general are dangerous, and I am wondering whether there can be any risks. Our test server is not available right now, so I'd have to work directly on the production one. One thing I had seen on our test server is that this seemed to work, except that JQL queries such as
resolved < 2015-03-20
are wrong because they still use the old Resolution date. Clearly, I have to reindex; but I'm wondering whether it is safe. Does Jira perform some consistency checks? Like, verifying that a ticket is solved after it is created. In my case, since I have modified the resolution date but not the creation, it is a clear inconsistency. Will Jira complain about this? Is there the risk to corrupt the DB? And if I also modify the creation date, do I have to watch out for other things?
We are using Jira 5.2.11.
I have access to the test server again, and I have tried it. I have modified all the RESOLUTIONDATE fields I had to fix, and when I reloaded the page the new date was there. Jira didn't complain about anything. I reindexed the server, so that queries yield correct results, and I saw no issues. Then I even ran the integrity checks (Administration -> System -> Integrity Checker), and no error was found.
Finally I did the same on the production server, and again everything is running fine.
I can therefore conclude that the operation is not dangerous at all, and it can be done safely.
I've inherited the maintenance of a DotNetNuke (v6.2.0.1610) site, and one of the things I'd like to do is to tidy up the database tables being used.
It looks like there might have been two installations of DNN into the same database (I'm guessing, I don't know its history and cannot find out), I'm making this assumption because there are two sets of DotNetNuke tables.
For example, we have:
dbo.Portals, dbo.PortalSettings, dbo.Profile, dbo.Roles, etc.
However, then we also have the same set, prefixed with dnn_ -
dbo.dnn_Portals, dbo.dnn_PortalSettings, dbo.dnn_Profile, dbo.dnn_Roles, etc.
I spent a good while tearing my hair out when I could not get our portal to load, when I discovered it is because I was editing the dbo.PortalAlias table and I needed to be editing the dbo.dnn_PortalAlias table instead.
I wanted to avoid this future maintenance headache, so I backed up the database, and set about deleting all the tables without the dnn_ prefix (web.config specifies objectQualifier="dnn_"). I diligently ensured there was a matching dnn_ table before deleting any.
At first it seemed fine - the portal loaded and all the content was there, I thought I was on to a winner. However when I logged in and accessed the site admin section, that's when I started to get lots of error messages. So I figured I'd deleted too much, I restored the backup, and all is well - portal working again.
However, I really would like to get rid of the unnecessary tables, because no doubt at some point in the future I'll start doing some work on the database, forget about the dnn_ prefix and waste a bunch of time wondering why something isn't working.
So, as a bit of a DotNetNuke newbie, I'm after some help - how can I know what tables are in use, what aren't, and how can I set about tidying up the SQL Server tables? Thanks.
I suggest you to delete only the tables which have an equivalent with the "dnn_" prefix.
The DNN database should contain at least the "aspnet_" prefixed tables which are used for the authentication on the portals.
Then, you could have some extensions which could use tables without the "dnn_" prefix. It depends on the sql scripts that those extensions have used during their installation. I hope that those extensions don't run queries on the dnn tables without the "dnn_" prefix. Otherwise it could explain the errors you've encountered.
You could use the SQL Server Profiler to check it.
It turns out there was a view, dnn_Lists which was still referencing dbo.Lists without the dnn_ prefix.
I fixed this view and it's fine now.
(PS: Turns out that it's useful to set IsSuperUser = 1 in the users table for who you're logged in as, because then you get the full exception details and can fix it.)
Thanks
It would make sense to delete all tables WITHOUT "dnn_", but you said you got a problem.
If you have time and patience and is adamant about tiding things up, I would delete 1 table at a time and test the admin feature it broke last time until you find the culprit. That is a long shot, but that is how I would approach.
What might be happening here is that you may have a 3rd module installed that ignores the objectQualifier and when you deleted those tables, you then broke that module.
We are building a webapp which is shipped to several client as a debian package. Each client runs his own server. But the update and support is done by us.
We make regular releases of the product, with a clean version number. Most of the users get an automatic update (by Puppet), some others don't.
We want to keep a trace of the version of the application (in order to allow the user to check the version in an "about" section, and for our support to help the user more accurately).
We plan to store the version of the code and the version of the base in our database, and to keep the info up to date automatically.
Is that a good idea ?
The other alternative we see is a file.
EDIT : The code and database schema are updated together. ( if we update to version x.y.z , both code and database go to x.y.z )
Using a table to track every change to a schema as described in this post is a good practice that I'd definitely suggest to follow.
For the application, if it is shipped independently of the database (which is not clear to me), I'd embed a file in the package (and thus not use the database to store the version of the web application).
If not and thus if both the application and the database versions are maintained in sync, then I'd just use the information stored in the database.
As a general rule, I would have both, DB version and application version. The problem here is how "private" is the database. If the database is "private" to the application, and user never modifies the schema then your initial solution is fine. In my experience, databases which accumulate several years of data stop being private, it means that users add a table or two and access data using some reporting tool; from that point on the database is not exclusively used by the application any more.
UPDATE
One more thing to consider is users (application) not being able to connect to the DB and calling for support. For this case it would be better to have version, etc.. stored on file system.
Assuming there are no compelling reasons to go with one approach or the other, I think I'd go with keeping them in the database.
I'd put them in both places. Then when running your about function you quickly check that they are both the same, and if they aren't you can display extra information about the version mismatch. If they're the same then you will only need to display one of them.
I've generally found users can do "clever" things like revert databases back to old versions by manually copying directories around "because they can" so defensively dealing with it is always a good idea.
I created a database for tracking metrics, with some automation tricks (email, .doc,.ppt presentations, etc) with a very large Main-table, and lots of forms/GUI. This is the first time I have ever I worried about an MDE/front-end for the thing. So if you would be so kind to answer a few questions, or offer any advice, it would be greatly appreciated (I would hate for all this work to not be utilized).
What is the first thing I need to do? It the 2000 version that must be converted to 03 to create the MDE, but does that get done before I use the database splitter?
Will the amount of objects in the database effect the ability to do this? I have something like 80 forms, 70 queries, 20+ macros, 12 tables, etc...but does the amount of objects prevent some of this from working well once the front end is there?
when i split the database, can I continue to work/make changes and such on the "back end", and have those changes directly effect the front end?
These may be some basic questions, but I don't know the answer so.....Thanks!
Here is my 2 ¢.
Question 1 - I have never used the database splitter as I feel I have more control doing it manually. If you do it manually you can do it to a version that does not have a database splitter. But if you do use the splitter then--yes--you will have to upgrade to a version that has a splitter before doing it.
To do it manually here are the steps.
Backup everything.
Create a copy of your file into the same directory. So if you have an MyApp.MDB create a copy into the same directory with a new name, such as MyAppDATA.mdb.
Open the new DATA file (MyAppDATA.mdb) and delete all of the objects EXCEPT the TABLES.
Open the App file (MyApp.mdb) and delete all of the tables.
Also in MyApp.mdb...go to the File/Get External Data/Link Tables menu to link the tables in MyAppDATA.mdb to MyApp.mdb. Select All and create the links.
That should do it. And if you screw up you made a backup...right?
A couple of tips and gotchas...be sure that you go to Tools/Options and that you are NOT showing System and Hidden tables. You just don't want to delete system tables from MyApp. Another way to do it is do NOT delete tables that start with MSys or USys.
Question 2 - Does not matter how many object you have. In fact you don't have that many objects anyway.
Question 3 - Yes...you will make backend changes in MyAppData.mdb and when you open MyApp.mdb those changes will auto-magically be there to see and query against etc. (In the query designer you may need to save/close/reopen to see new fields if you made the mod while in the query). The EXCEPTION to that is New Tables You will have to use the File/Get External Data/Link Tables option to create links to new tables.
One thing to remember (and that I hope you already realize) is that the one downside of splitting the database is that when you deploy the front end file that usually the relative path to the data will vary from machine to machine and there is no automatic re-linking of tables in access. If your target clients have full access you can always use Tools/Database Utilities/Linked Table Manager to refresh the links to the right location. If you can't do that then you will have to do one of the following:
1. Write code that does the automatic re-linking for you. Basically it will check the links...if invalid it will prompt the user for the data location (or look it up in an INI file) and re-link the tables.
2. Always deploy your app to the same location on all machines. If you have commercial visions for your application this won't work...I mention it for academic reasons. It might be doable for a limited deployment where you have a lot of control over file placement on each machine.
3. Put the Data file (MyAppDATA.mdb) onto a network share and link the table across the network using a drive mapping or UNC (\myserver\mydata\ApplicationData\MyAppData.mdb). The latter is preferred but both of them run the same risks as number two.
Seth
PS This answer assumes Access 2003.
PPS If you have commercial visions for your application then the table linking has got to be REALLY robust.
PPPS I agree with the commenter that you may want to take the plunge and do SQL if it is in your skill set.
One thing that hasn't been discussed, and that's the issue of whether the compile to MDE could fail. Basically, if your code compiles in your front-end MDB, it will convert to an MDE. But I've noticed that lots of people never compile.
Some hints for keeping your VBA code in good shape:
in VBE options, turn off COMPILE ON DEMAND.
add the COMPILE button to your standard VBE toolbar and USE IT OFTEN.
periodically, backup your MDB and decompile/recompile it.
Also, remember that you must keep the MDB source, as the VBA code is not editable in an MDE and not recoverable by any good method.
EDIT:
Steps for a decompile:
backup your MDB.
start an instance of Access with the /decompile commandline argument. For, instance, I have a shortcut on my deskstop that has this as the target:
"C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\MSACCESS.EXE" /decompile
having opened that instance of Access, open the MDB you want to decompile. You will see nothing happen. DO NOTHING FURTHER IN THIS INSTANCE OF ACCESS -- close this instance of Access (the reason for this is that Michael Kaplan, who knows a thing or two about this, recommended that you never do any work in an Access instance opened with the decompile switch because he said there was no guarantee that the Access application code executed under those circumstances in a way that was fully safe for all kinds of Access work).
open the just-decompiled MDB holding down the shift key (you want to be sure that startup routines don't run because that would likely recompile the product before you've finished your cleanup) and compact the MDB (holding down the shift key again).
open the code editor and compile the project (DEBUG -> COMPILE [db name] for those who haven't step #2 in my original compiling instructions at the top of the post before the edit).
compact the MDB (doesn't matter if you bypass startup, since it's already fully compiled).
Why so many steps?
Because the purpose of the decompile is to get rid of the compiled p-code in order to start afresh from the canonical VBA code. Following the steps above insures that you have completely cleared the data pages storing the compiled code before you recompile. The reason for this is that without the compact step after the decompile, under some very rare circumstances, the code can behave strangely. I can't imagine that the old discarded p-code is being used again, but there's something about the pointers between the canonical code and the compiled code that apparently doesn't get completely flushed by a decompile without a compact.
This would be a comment to Seth's answer, but my rep isn't high enough to comment yet.
Seth did a great job answering your questions, I just wanted to add a bit more to part #1 about using the Database Splitter. The Database Splitter in the Tools menu works fine. Doing it manually is alright too, but it's a whole lot faster and easier to use the Database Splitter. I've used it a dozen times and never encountered any issues after using it.
http://www.databasedev.co.uk/split_a_database.html has a decent page about some of the pros, cons of splitting your database.
http://www.accessmvp.com/TWickerath/articles/multiuser.htm also has some good info when dealing with a split database in a multi-user environment.
Seth gave you a very good answer. But I'll add a few comments.
The number of objects only becomes relevant when you get close to about 1000 forms, reports and modules which have code. There's a limit about there. If you do get that message when trying to make an MDE then you almost certainly have a code error and need to compile to find the error
Another resource is "Splitting your app into a front end and back end Tips"
See the Auto FE Updater downloads page to make the process of distributing new FEs relatively painless.. The utility also supports Terminal Server/Citrix quite nicely.
In our current database development evironment we have automated build procceses check all the sql code out of svn create database scripts and apply them to the various development/qa databases.
This is all well and good, and is a tremdous improvement over what we did in the past, but we have a problem with rerunning scripts. Obviously this isn't a problem with some scripts like altering procedures, because you can run them over and over without adversly affecting the system. Right now to add metadata and run statements like create/alter table statements we add code to check and see if the objects exists, and if they do, don't run them.
Our problem is that we really only get one shot to run the script, because once the script has been run, the objects are in the environment and system won't run the script again. If something needs to change once it's been deployed, we have a difficult process of running update scripts agaist the update scripts and hoping that everything falls in the correct order and all of the PKs line up between the environments (the databases are, shall we say, "special").
Short of dropping the database and starting the process from scratch (the last most current release), does anyone have a more elegant solution to this?
I'm not sure how best to approach the problem in your specific environment, but I'd suggest reading up on Rail's migrations feature for some inspiration on how to get started.
http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/UnderstandingMigrations
We address this - or at least a similar problem to this - as follows:
The schema has a version number - this is represented by a table which has one row per version which, as well as the version number, carries boring things like a date/time stamp for when that version came into existence.
By having the schema create/modify DDL wrapped in code that performs the changes for us.
In the context above one would build the schema change code as part of the build process then run it and it would only apply schema changes that haven't already been applied.
In our experience (which is bound not to be representative) in most cases the schema changes are sufficiently small/fast that they can safely be run in a transaction which means that if it fails we get a rollback and the db is "safe" - although one would always recommend taking backups before applying schema updates if practicable.
I evolved this out of nasty painful experience. Its not a perfect system (or an original idea) but as a result of working this way we have a high degree of confidence that if there are two instances of one of our databases with the same version that then the schema for those two databases will be the same in almost all respects and that we can safely bring any db up to the current schema for that application without ill effects. (That last isn't 100% true unfortunately - there's always an exception - but its not too far from the truth!)
Do you keep your existing data in the database? If not, you may want to look at something similar to what Matt mentioned for .NET called RikMigrations
http://www.rikware.com/RikMigrations.html
I use that on my projects to update my database on the fly, while keeping track of revisions. Also, it makes it very simple to move database schema to different servers, etc.
if you want to have re-runnability in your scripts, then you can't have them as definitions... what I mean by this is that you need to focus on change scripts rather than here is my Table script.
let's say you have a table Customers:
create table Customers (
id int identity(1,1) primary key,
first_name varchar(255) not null,
last_name varchar(255) not null
)
and later you want to add a status column. Don't modify your original table script, that one has already run (and can have the if(! exists) syntax to prevent it from causing errors while running again).
Instead, have a new script, called add_customer_status.sql
in this script you'll have something like:
alter table Customers
add column status varchar(50) null
update Customers set status = 'Silver' where status is null
alter table Customers
alter column status varchar(50) not null
Again you can wrap this with an if(! exists) block to allow re-running, but here we've leveraged the notion that this is a change script, and we adapt the database accordingly. If there is data already in the customers table then we're still okay, since we add the column, seed it with data, then add the not null constraint.
Both of the migration frameworks mentioned above are good, I've also had excellent experience with MigratorDotNet.
Scott named a couple of other SQL tools that address the problem of change management. But I'm still rolling my own.
I would like to second this question, and add my puzzlement that there is still no free, community-based tool for this problem. Obviously, scripts are not a satisfactory way to maintain a database schema; neither are instances. So, why don't we keep metadata in a separate (and while we're at it, platform-neutral) format?
That's what I'm doing now. My master database schema is a version-controlled XML file, created initially from a simple web service. A simple javascript program compares instances against it, and a simple XSL transform yields the CREATE or ALTER statements. It has limits, like RikMigrations; for instance it doesn't always sequence inter-depdendent objects correctly. (But guess what — neither does Microsoft's SQL Server Database Publication tool.) Really, it's too simple. I simply didn't include objects (roles, users, etc.) that I wasn't using.
So, my view is that this problem is indeed inadequately addressed, and that sooner or later we'll have to get together and tackle the devilish details.
We went the 'drop and recreate the schema' route. We had some classes in our JUnit test package which parameterized the scripts to create all the objects in the schema for the developer executing the code. This allowed all the developers to share one test database and everyone could simultaneously create/test/drop their test tables without conflicts.
Did it take a long time to run? Yes. At first we used the setup method for this which meant the tables were dropped/created for every test and that took way too long. Then we created a TestSuite which could be run once before all the tests for a class and then cleaned up when all the class tests were complete. This still meant that the db setup ran many times when we ran our 'AllTests' class which included all the tests in all our packages. How I solved it was adding a semaphore to the OracleTestSuite code so when the first test requested the database to be setup it would do that but any subsequent call would just increment a counter. As each tearDown() method was called, the counter would decrement the counter until it reached 0 and the OracleTestSuite code would drop everything. One issue this leaves is whether the tests assume that the database is empty. It can be convenient to let database tests know the order in which they run so they can take advantage of the state of the database because it can reduce the duplication of DB setup.
We used the concept of ObjectMothers to solve a similar problem with creating complex domain objects for testing purposes. Mock objects might be a better answer but we hadn't heard about them at the time. After all this time, I'd recommend creating test helper methods that could create standardized datasets for the typical scenarios. Plus that would help document the important edge cases from a data perspective.