Related
I want to learn how practical using an LDAP server (say AD) as a storage base. To be more clear; how much does it make sense using an LDAP server instead of using RDBMS to store data?
I can guess that most you might just say "it doesn't" but there might be some reasons to make it meaningful (especially business wise);
A few points first;
Each table becomes a container entity and each row becomes a new entity as a child. Row entities contains attributes for columns. So you represent your data in this way. (This should be the most meaningful representation I think, suggestions are welcome)
So storing data like a DB server is possible but lack of FK and PK (not sure about PK) support is an issue. On the other hand it supports attribute (relates to a column) indexing (Not sure how efficient). So consistency of data is responsibility of the application layer.
Why would somebody do this ever?
Data that application uses/stores closely matches with the existing data in AD. (Users, Machines, Department Info etc.) (But still some customization is required to existing entity schema, and new schema definitions are needed for not very much related data.)
(I think strongest reason would be this: business related) Most mid-sized companies have very well configured AD servers (replicated, backed-up etc.) but they don't have such DB setup (you can make comment to this as much as you want). Say when you sell your software which requires a DB setup to these companies, they must manage their DB setup; but if you say "you don't need DB setup and management; you can just use existing AD", it sounds appealing.
Obviously there are many disadvantages of giving up using DB, feel free to mention them but let's assume they are acceptable. (I can mention more if question is not clear enough.)
LDAP is a terrible tool for maintaining most business data.
Think about a typical one-to-many relationship - say, customer and orders. One customer has many orders.
There is no good way to represent this data in an LDAP directory.
You could try having a mock "foreign key" by making every entry of that given object class have a "foreign key" attribute, but your referential integrity just went out the window. Cascade deletes are impossible.
You could try having a "customer" object that has "order" children. However, you've just introduced a specific hierachy - you're now tied to it.
And that's the simplest use case. Once you start getting into more complex relationships, you're basically re-inventing an RDBMS in a system explicity designed for a different purpose. The clue's in the name - directory.
If you're storing a phonebook, then sure, use LDAP. For anything else, use a real database.
For relatively small, flexible data sets I think an LDAP solution is workable. However an RDBMS provides a number significant advantages:
Backup and Recovery: just about any database will provide ACID properties. And, RDBMS backups are generally easy to script and provide several options (e.g. full vs. differential). Just don't know with LDAP, but I imagine these qualities are not as widespread.
Reporting: AFAIK LDAP doesn't offer a way to JOIN values easily, much the less do things like calculate summations. So you would put a lot of effort into application code to reproduce those behaviors when you do need reporting. And what application doesn't ultimately?
Indexing: looks like LDAP solutions have indexing, but again, seems hit or miss. Whereas seemingly all databases out there have put some real effort into getting this right.
I think any serious business system's storage should be backed up in the same fashion you believe LDAP is in most environments. If what you're really after is its flexibility in terms of representing hierarchy and ability to define dynamic schemas I'd suggest looking into NoSQL solutions or the Java Content Repository.
LDAP is very usefull for storing that information and if you want it, you may use it. RDMS is just more comfortable with ORM systems. Your persistence logic with LDAP will so complex.
And worth mentioning that this is not a standard approach -> people who will support the project will spend more time on analysis.
I've used this approach for fun, i generate a phonebook from Active Directory, but i don`t think that it's good idea to use LDAP as a store for business applications.
In short: Use the right tool for the right job.
When people see LDAP you already set an expectation on your system. Don't forget that the L Lightweight. LDAP was designed for accessing directories over a network.
With a “directory database” you can build a certain type of application. If you can map your data to a tree like data structure it will work. I surely would not want to steam videos from LDAP! You can probably hack something but I would prefer a steaming server..
There might be some hidden gotchas down the line if you use a tool not designed for what it is supposed to do. So, the downside is you'll have to test stuff that would have been a given in some cases.
It's not is not just a technical concern. Your operational support team might “frown” on your application as they would have certain expectations/preconceptions based on your applications architectural nature. Imagine their surprise if you give them CRM system (website + files and popped email etc.) in a LDAP server as database to maintain.
If I was in your position, I would steer towards one of the NoSQL db solutions rather than trying to use LDAP. LDAP is fine for things like storing user and employee information, but is terrible to interact with when you need to make changes. A NoSQL db will allow you to store your data how you want without the RDBMS overhead you would like to avoid.
The answer is actually easy. Think of CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete). If a lot of Read will be made in your system, you can think of using LDAP. Because LDAP is quick in read operations and designed so. If the other operations will be made more, the RDMS would be a better option.
I'm in the process of choosing database for my application. I have been using MySQL for the longest time but for my current application Performance and Scalability is important and I know MySQL has its limitation and I have been hearing a lot about key-value stores, column-based DBs and document-based DBs and others. I have looked into:
Cassandra
MongoDB
Redis
CouchDB
They all seem (or claim) to be faster than relational DBs such as MySQL.
I'm using Ruby on Rails and there are clients for all the above so it shouldn't be a problem.
My data model is simple for the most part which is centered on a user object(with rich profile and preferences) related to different items such as photos, videos, posts...etc and each one of these has one tag or more.
The fact that these databases are new there doesn't seem to be a lot of resources for them online. Plus they are in a way structurally different so it will not be trivial to switch from one to another later.
I wish you can give me your input on what DB you think would be most suit my application that will have good performance and scale.
Thanks,
Tam
Step 1) Create your design using whatever technology you are strongest with.
Step 2) Release your social network, begin on researching non-relational databases and master whichever you feel most comfortable with.
Step 3) Refactor your data tier so you could potentially replace MySQL quickly and easily with your newly learned DB technology.
Step 4) Wait for your website to become so big that the need to replace MySQL comes around and begin to plug the holes.
I know this seems kind of cheeky, but really my point is just release your software and start to worry about scale etc. when it actually becomes a concern.
The primary benefit of something like a document database, at least for your app, is that you can treat the entire User glob of info as a single document. You don't have to worry about adding table for properties, or new features, or whatever, rather you can keep the bulk of it in the user document and update it dynamically.
For read often, write rarely, this works a treat.
Now you don't need a "document database" to do something like this. MySQL et al will work just fine with a primary key and a CLOB (text) / BLOB field to hold the document.
Where something like CouchDB (the one that I'm most familiar with in this space) can help is that it has well supported replication, and it's straightforward to create views on specific attributes of the documents (for example, you want all "premiere" members, or whatever).
Plus, since CouchDB is HTTP, it works well with the modern caches and such that are available, which can help you in scaling, especially in, again, read heavy operations.
A lot of this is more about overall architecture than actual tools, so make sure you consider that first.
There is also Tokyo Cabinet which is used by some large sites.
I have not yet used on but my understanding is that when site like Twitter need to turn large numbers of messages round very quickly the overhead of the RDBMS is just to great and starts to slow the response times down significantly.
What you would need to do is look at the advantages you get from an RDBMS and weigh that against it's speed then do the same in reverse for a nosql type database.
RDBMS's give you a standard, they give you security, integrity and a general purpose language based on sets to make data manipulation easier. However if you do not need all or any of that structure you are loosing out on speed.
Prior to SQL was CODASYL and network databases. SQL took ove because of portability and transferability of skills etc. But i think the mobile wired world is changing this and it would be worth investigating.
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
When dealing with small projects, what do you feel is the break even point for storing data in simple text files, hash tables, etc., versus using a real database? For small projects with simple data management requirements, a real database is unnecessary complexity and violates YAGNI. However, at some point the complexity of a database is obviously worth it. What are some signs that your problem is too complex for simple ad-hoc techniques and needs a real database?
Note: To people used to enterprise environments, this will probably sound like a weird question. However, my problem domain is bioinformatics. Most of my programming is prototypes, not production code. I'm primarily a domain expert and secondarily a programmer. Most of my code is algorithm-centric, not data management-centric. The purpose of this question is largely for me to figure out how much work I might save in the long run if I learn to use proper databases in my code instead of the more ad-hoc techniques I typically use.
1) Concurrency. Do you have multiple people accessing the same dataset? Then it's going to get pretty involved to broker all of the different readers and writers in a scalable fashion if you roll your own system.
2) Formatting and relationships: Is your data something that doesn't fit neatly into a table structure? Long nucleotide sequences and stuff like that? That's not really conveniently tabular data.
Another example: Nobody would consider implementing software like Photoshop to store PSDs in a relational format, because the data structures don't really lend themselves to that type of storage or query pattern.
3) ACID (sort of a corollary to #1): If Atomicity, Consistency, Integrity, and Durability are not challenges with a flat file, then go with a flat file.
For me, the line is crossed once I have to query my data in ways that involve more than a single relationship. Relating two flat data structures on disk is fairly simple, but once we get beyond that, a set-based language like SQL and formal database relationships actually reduce complexity.
I think at some point you'll miss the querying capabilities of a database, but you can consider some minimalistic database alternatives:
SQLite (Great, almost SQL-92 standard compliant)
shsql
SQL Server Compact
I would only write my own on-disk format under very special circumstances. Reusing someone else's code is nearly always faster.
For relational data, I would use SQLite. For key/value pairs, I would use BerkeleyDB (perhaps via KiokuDB). For simple objects, I would use JSON or YAML, but only if I only had a few.
With SQLite and BDB, "a real database" is literally two lines of code away. It is hard to beat that.
The problem with small projects is that they become bigger before we know it. And once they do , we start missing the sql capabilities.
Always design such that a db can be utilized later on if required without ripping apart half of the application.
It depends entirely on the domain-specific application needs. A lot of times direct text file/binary files access can be extremely fast, efficient, as well as providing you all the file access capabilities of your OS's file system.
Furthermore, your programming language most likely already has a built-in module (or is easy to make one) for specific parsing.
If what you need is many appends (INSERTS?) and sequential/few access little/no concurrency, files are the way to go.
On the other hand, when your requirements for concurrency, non-sequential reading/writing, atomicity, atomic permissions, your data is relational by the nature etc., you will be better off with a relational or OO database.
There is a lot that can be accomplished with SQLite3, which is extremely light (under 300kb), ACID compliant, written in C/C++, and highly ubiquitous (if it isn't already included in your programming language -for example Python-, there is surely one available). It can be useful even on db files as big as 1GB, possible more.
If your requirements where bigger, there wouldn't even be a discussion, go for a full-blown RDBMS.
For the kind of applications you are developing in bioinformatics, you are often doing one-shot applications (often scripts that define a workflow of calculations) that answer a specific questions, and you are not likely to be reusing these applications after you answered your question.
Often, you should therefore avoid creating databases to store the results, as after all you are not going to use their features very much.
You will probably be querying some webservices, files, or databases, run some local algorithms on the data gathered from different sources, and produce some tabular or structured output format (xml, json, etc).
For that, I would suggest you to use workflow tools like Knime (or a commercial solution like Inforsense KDE, Accelrys's Pipeline pilot, or Snaplogic, as they allow you to query data in a variety of formats and locations (rdbms, flat files, webservices), run algorithms, and build powerful web apps that allow you to easily publish your workflows to your users and let them interact at specific points).
If your prototype "grows" and you have to build more functionality on top of the data your workflows output, and if the output of your prototype is not likely to change everyday, then it's a wise decision to store a subset of the results in a database. This allows you to plug in powerful reporting tools like BusinessObjects, Crystal reports, jasper reports or whatever reporting solution available out there and show data to your users in a better shape than a spreadsheet or a csv file.
Finally, some development frameworks will make your choices more obvious : if you build a web application using an MVC framework, it is likely that your data will reside in an RDBMS (but please, don't put genomic sequences in a table column :-)).
All in all, it's a case by case choice, depending on your needs for each particular application.
In software I can usually get away with storing values in a XML configuration file or in the registry, e.g. software options. Once I need to persist objects I move to a database because the upfront cost is not that bad compared to the long term effects that relations and reporting can offer.
For bioinformatics you may be interested on that: Blast on DB. The guy who is working on that is a friend of mine and has a work on fast similarity sequence search, he found out to make his own binary storage better than using databases at this point.
I don't know specific details about his solution but you probably can exchange one or two ideias mailing the guy, even sharing code.
Do you need/want SQL queries?
Are multiple people going to want to access the data?
Is your data relational?
If you answered no to those questions, you (probably) don't need a full on database.
First, I'd consider:
How large will the database initially be: # of tables, # of rows
How quickly will it grow?
Is the data frequently queried?
If I were to create a personal recipe app, for example, I know I might add 50 favorite recipes to start and add no more than 5 recipes a year. With that being said, I could easily get by without a database since the size of the data store will have minimal impact on queries.
That said, I would probably use a database for any application where data entry and queries occur (even a small personal recipe app). I don't think it adds a lot of overhead especially when your framework (e.g. Rails) allows you to keep your database dumb (primarily tables, indexes, and constraints). It alleviates the chance that I'll have to eventually port to a database if I decide to scale up.
If you know the format of your data, flat files, if faster/easier to develop with, will be fine. If you expect your record formats to change frequently during development then I'd suggest that ALTER TABLE is your friend. Flat files will also tend to be faster (if you care about speed) unless you expect to implement the equivalent of joins across many combinations of files.
The real benefit of using a RDBMS during development is the flexibility with which you can modify your data schema and the ease with which you can access your data via queries.
Good design will ensure that you keep your data access layer relatively isolated (because of separation of concerns) so it should be a fairly straightforward (if tedious) matter to rework to a database later should it be worthwhile. Or, of course, if you use a database to develop your structures you may subsequently take the app back to flat/indexed files once those structures are crystallized in order to gain performance.
Use whatever persistence technology you're most comfortable with, and scales sufficiently.
YAGNI at least means "Don't add a new technology to your personal stack unless you can't be productive with whatever is already there."
For many (most?) of us, our comfort zone for data persistence is SQL. For some, it might be XML. Just don't write your own until (see paragraph 2).
As someone also doing research in Bioinformatics, I would suggest NOT using a database for these kinds of prototype projects unless you are sure it needs it. If you are on the fence, go with the databaseless solution and stick with flat files. It is also important to note that traditionally Bioinformatics researchers have go the flat file route, which means there are well defined file formats for most types of data in the feild. If you decide to go with a database solution, it may hurt your compatibility with existing research projects.
I know that the title might sound a little contradictory, but what I'm asking is with regards to ORM frameworks (SQLAlchemy in this case, but I suppose this would apply to any of them) that allow you to define your schema within your application.
Is it better to change the database schema directly and then update the column types in your program manually, or does it make more sense to define the tables in your application and then use the ORM framework's table generation functions to make the schema and then build the tables on the database side for you?
Bear in mind that applications and databases tend to live in a M:M relationship in any but the most trivial cases. If your application is at all likely to have interfaces to other systems, reports, data extracts or loads, or data migrated onto or off it from another system then the database has more than one stakeholder.
Be nice to the other stakeholders in your application. Take the time and get the schema right and put some thought into data quality in the design of your application. Keep an eye on anyone else using the application and make sure you don't break bits of the schema that they depend on without telling them. This means that the database has a life of its own to a greater or lesser extent. The more integration, the more independent the database.
Of course, if nobody else uses or cares about the data, feel free to ignore my advice.
My personal belief is that you should design the database on its own merits. The database is the best place to handle things modeling your Domain data. The database is also the biggest source of slow down in applications and letting your ORM design your database seems like a bad idea to me. :)
Of course, I've only got a couple of big projects behind me. I'm still learning daily. :)
The best way to define your database schema is to start with modeling your application domain (domain driven design anyone?) and seeing what tables take shape based on the domain objects you define.
I think this is the best way because really the database is simply a place to persist information from the application, it should never lead the design. It's not the only place to persist information as well. We have users that want to work from flat files or the database for instance. They could also use XML files. So by starting with your domain objects and then generating tables (or flat file or XML schema or whatever) from there will lead to a much better design in the end.
While this may depend on you using an object-oriented language, using an ORM tool like Hibernate/NHibernate, SubSonic, etc. can really make this transition easy for you up to, and including generating the database creation scripts.
In reference to performance, performance should be one of the last things you look at in an application, it should never drive the design. After you get a good schema up and running based on your domain you can always make tweaks to improve its performance.
Alot depends on your skill level with the specific database product that you're going to use. Think of it as the difference between a "manual" and "automatic" transmission car. ORMs provide you with that "automatic" transmission, just start designing your classes, and let the ORM worry about getting it stored into the database somehow.
Sounds good. The problem with most ORMs is that in their quest to be PI "persistence ignorant", they often don't take advantage of specific database features that can provide elegant solutions for a given task. Notice, I didn't say ALL ORMs, just most.
My take is to design the conceptual data model first yourself. Then you can go in either direction, up towards the application space, or down towards the physical database. But remember, only YOU know if it's more advantageous to use a view instead of a table, should you normalize or de-normalize a table, what non-clustered index(es) make sense with this table, is a natural or surrogate key more appropriate for this table, etc... Of course, if you feel that these questions are beyond your grasp, then let the ORM help you out.
One more thing, you really need to seperate the application design from the database design. They are almost never the same. How important is that data? Could another application be designed to use that data? It's a lot easier to refactor an application than it is to refactor a database with a billion rows of data spread across thousands of tables.
Well, if you can get away with it, doing it in the application is probably the best way. Since it's a perfect example of the DRY principle.
Having said that however, getting away with it is always going to be hard to pull off since you're practically choosing to give up most database specific optimizations. (more so, with querying, but it still applies to schemas (indexes, etc)).
You'll probably end up changing the schema by hand anyway, and then you'll be stuck with a brittle database schema that's going to be the source of your worst nightmares :)
My 2 Cents
Design each based on their own requirements as much as possible. Trying to keep them in too rigid sync is a good illustration of increased coupling/decreased cohesion.
Come to think of it, ORMs can easily be used to spread coupling (even though it can be avoided to some degree).