Designing a user content website (kind of similar to yelp but for a different market and with photo sharing) and had few databse questions:
Does each user get their own set of
tables or are we storing multiple
user data into common tables? Since
this even a social network, when
user sizes grows for scalability
databases are usually partitioned
off. Different sets of users are
sent separately, so what is the best
approach? I guess some data like
user accounts can be in common
tables but wall posts, photos etc
each user will get their own table?
If so, then if we have 10 million
users then that means 10 million x
what ever number of tables per user?
This is currently being designed in
MySQL
How does the user tables know what
to create each time a user joins the
site? I am assuming there may be a
system table template from which it
is pulling in the fields?
In addition to the above question,
if tomorrow we modify tables,
add/remove features, to roll the
changes down to all the live user
accounts/tables - I know from a page
point of view we have the master
template, but for the database, how
will the user tables be updated? Is
that something we manually do or the
table will keep checking like every
24 hrs with the system tables for
updates to its structure?
If the above is all true, that means we are maintaining 1 master set of tables with system default values, then each user get the same value copied to their tables? Some fields like say Maximum failed login attempts before system locks account. One we have a system default of 5 login attempts within 30 minutes. But I want to allow users also to specify their own number to customize their won security, so that means they can overwrite the system default in their own table?
Thanks.
Users should not get their own set of tables. It will most likely not perform as well as one table (properly indexed), and schema changes will have to be deployed to all user tables.
You could have default values specified on the table for things that are optional.
With difficulty. With one set of tables it will be a lot easier, and probably faster.
That sort of data should be stored in a User Preferences table that stores all preferences for all users. Again, don't duplicate the schema for all users.
Generally the idea of creating separate tables for each entity (in this case users) is not a good idea. If each table is separate querying may be cumbersome.
If your table is large you should optimize the table with indexes. If it gets very large, you also may want to look into partitioning tables.
This allows you to see the table as 1 object, though it is logically split up - the DBMS handles most of the work and presents you with 1 object. This way you SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, ALTER etc as normal, and the DB figures out which partition the SQL refers to and performs the command.
Not splitting up the tables by users, instead using indexes and partitions, would deal with scalability while maintaining performance. if you don't split up the tables manually, this also makes that points 2, 3, and 4 moot.
Here's a link to partitioning tables (SQL Server-specific):
http://databases.about.com/od/sqlserver/a/partitioning.htm
It doesn't make any kind of sense to me to create a set of tables for each user. If you have a common set of tables for all users then I think that avoids all the issues you are asking about.
It sounds like you need to locate a primer on relational database design basics. Regardless of the type of application you are designing, you should start there. Learn how joins work, indices, primary and foreign keys, and so on. Learn about basic database normalization.
It's not customary to create new tables on-the-fly in an application; it's usually unnecessary in a properly designed schema. Usually schema changes are done at deployment time. The only time "users" get their own tables is an artifact of a provisioning decision, wherein each "user" is effectively a tenant in a walled-off garden; this only makes sense if each "user" (more likely, a company or organization) never needs access to anything that other users in the system have stored.
There are mechanisms for dealing with loosely structured types of information in databases, but if you find yourself reaching for this often (the most common method is called Entity-Attribute-Value), your problem is either not quite correctly modeled, or you may not actually need a relational database, in which case it might be better off with a document-oriented database like CouchDB/MongoDB.
Adding, based on your updated comments/notes:
Your concerns about the number of records in a particular table are most likely premature. Get something working first. Most modern DBMSes, including newer versions of MySql, support mechanisms beyond indices and clustered indices that can help deal with large numbers of records. To wit, in MS Sql Server you can create a partition function on fields on a table; MySql 5.1+ has a few similar partitioning options based on hash functions, ranges, or other mechanisms. Follow well-established conventions for database design modeling your domain as sensibly as possible, then adjust when you run into problems. First adjust using the tools available within your choice of database, then consider more drastic measures only when you can prove they are needed. There are other kinds of denormalization that are more likely to make sense before you would even want to consider having something as unidiomatic to database systems as a "table per user" model; even if I were to look at that route, I'd probably consider something like materialized views first.
I agree with the comments above that say that a table per user is a bad idea. Also, while it's a good idea to have strategies in mind now for how you can cope when things get really big, I'd concentrate on getting things right for a small number of users first - if no-one wants to / is able to use your service, then unfortunately you won't be faced with the problem of lots of users.
A common approach among very large sites is database sharding. The summary is: you have N instances of your database in parallel (on separate machines), and each holds 1/N of the total data. There's some shared way of knowing which instance holds a given bit of data. To access some data you have 2 steps, rather than the 1 you might expect:
Work out which shard holds the data
Go to that shard for the data
There are problems with this, such as: you set up e.g. 8 shards and they all fill up, so you want to share the data over e.g. 20 shards -> migrating data between shards.
Related
I am making a client management application in which I am storing the data of employee , admin and company. In the future the database will have hundreds of companies registered. I am thinking to go for the best approach to database design.
I can think of 2 approaches:
Making all tables of app separately for each company
Storing all data in app database
Can you suggest the best way to do that?
Please note that all 3 tables are linked on the basis of ids and there will be hundreds of companies and each company will have many admin and each admin will have hundreds of employee . What would be the best approach to do with security and query performance
With the partial information you provided, it look like 3 normalized tables is what you need, plus the auxiliar data like lookups and other stuff.
But when you design a database you would need to consider many more point like, security, visibility, client access methods, etc
For example if you want to ensure isolation, and don't allow users to have any visibility to other's data, you could create dynamically a schema per company, create user and access rights for each schema dynamically. Then you'll need support these stuff in the DAL, which in fact will be quite fat.
Another approach for the DAl could be exposing views that always return subsets for one company.
A big reason reason that I would suggest going for the normalized approach is that maintenance will be much easier this way.
From a SQL point of view I don't see any performance advantage having many tables or just 3, efficiency of the indexes, and smart DAL will make the difference.
The performance of the query doesn't much depends on the size of table but it depends more on the indexes you have on that table. so you need to put clustered and non clustered indexes as per your requirement and i can guarantee that up to 10 GB of data you will not face any problem
This is a classic problem shared my most web business services: for discussions of the factors involved, Google "multi-tenant architecture."
You almost certainly want to put all companies into a common set of tables: each data table should reference the company key, and all queries should join on that key, among their other criteria. This allows the best overall performance, and saves you the potential maintenance nightmare of duplicating views, stored procedures and so on hundreds of times, or of having to apply the same structural changes to hundreds of tables should you wish to add a field or a table.
To help assure that you don't inadvertently intermingle data from different customers, it might be useful to do all data access through a validated set of stored procedures (all of which take the company ID as a parameter).
Hundreds of parallel databases will not scale very well: the DB server will constantly be pushing tables and indexes out of memory to accommodate the next query, resulting in disk thrashing and poor performance, as well. There is only pain down that path.
depending on the use-cases of your application there is no "best" way.
Please explain the operations your application will provide so we can get further insight into your problem.
The data to be stored seemed to be structured so a relational database at a first glance would work out well, but stick to the point i marked above.
You have not said how this data links at all or if there are even any links between them. However, at a guess, you need 3 tables.
EmployeeTable
AdminTable
CompanyTable
Each with the required properties in there, without additional information I'm not able to provide any more guidance.
Background
building an online information system which user can access through any computer. I don't want to replicate DB and code for every university or organization.
I just want user to hit a domain like www.example.com sign in and use it.
For second user it will also hit the same domain www.example.com sign in and use it. but the data for them are different.
Scenario
suppose a university has 200 employees, 2nd university has 150 and so on.
Qusetion
Do i need to have separate employee table for each university or is it OK to have a single table with a column that has University ID?
I assume 2nd is best but Suppose i have 20 universities or organizations and a total of thousands of employees.
What is the best approach?
This same thing is for all table? This is just to give you an example.
Thanks
The approach will depend upon the data, usage, and client requirements/restrictions.
Use an integrated model, as suggested by duffymo. This may be appropriate if each organization is part of a larger whole (i.e. all colleges are part of a state college board) and security concerns about cross-query access are minimal2. This approach has a minimal amount of separation between each organization as the same schema1 and relations are "openly" shared. It leads to a very simple model initially, but it can become very complicated (with compound FKs and correct usage of such) if needing relations for organization-specific values because it adds another dimension of data.
Implement multi-tenancy. This can be achieved with implicit filters on the relations (perhaps hidden behinds views and store procedures), different schemas, or other database-specific support. Depending upon implementation this may or may not share schema or relations even though all data may reside in the same database. With implicit isolation, some complicated keys or relationships can be hidden/eliminated. Multi-tenancy isolation also generally makes it harder/impossible to cross-query.
Silo the databases entirely. Each customer or "organization" has a separate database. This implies separate relations and schema groups. I have found this approach to to be relatively simple with automated tooling, but it does require managing multiple database. Direct cross-querying is impossible, although "linked databases" can be used if there is a need.
Even though it's not "a single DB", in our case, we had the following restrictions 1) not allowed to ever share/expose data between organizations, and 2) each organization wanted their own local database. Thus, our product ended up using a silo approach. Make sure that the approach chosen meets customer requirements.
None of these approaches will have any issue with "thousands", "hundreds of thousands", or even "millions" of records as long as the indices and queries are correctly planned. However, switching from one to another can violate many assumed constraints and so the decision should be made earlier on.
1 In this response I am using "schema" to refer to the security grouping of database objects (e.g. tables, views) and not the database model itself. The actual database model used can be common/shared, as we do even when using separate databases.
2 An integrated approach is not necessarily insecure - but it doesn't inherently have some of the built-in isolation of other designs.
I would normalize it to have UNIVERSITY and EMPLOYEE tables, with a one-to-many relationship between them.
You'll have to take care to make sure that only people associated with a given university can see their data. Role based access will be important.
This is called a multi-tenant architecture. you should read this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa479086.aspx
I would go with Tenant Per Schema, which means copying the structure across different schemas, however, as you should keep all your SQL DDL in source control, this is very easy to script.
It's easy to screw up and "leak" information between tenants if doing it all in the same table.
Can anybody explain how data independence in ensured in a relational database? What says that nothing will change for the user if the database structure changes?
For example, I have relation R (and have created an application which uses this relation) and the database admin decides to make a decomposition of R to R1 and R2. How is application inalterability ensured for the end user?
I asked myself exactly the same question during my Database class.
According Codd's 12 rules, there are two kinds of data independence:
Physical Data Independence requires that changes at the physical level (like data structures) have no impact in the applications that consume the database. For example, let's say you decide to stop using a Hash Index in your table and decide to use a B-Tree Index instead: Your application that executes queries against this table doesn't have to change at all.
Logical Data Independence states that changes at the logical level (tables, columns, rows) will have no impact in the applications that access the database. As you already noticed, this feature is harder to implement that Physical Data Independence but there are still cases when this feature works. For example, if you add Tables, Columns or Rows to your current scheme the already working queries aren't affected at all.
Your question is not phrased very clearly. I don't see the relationship between between "data independence" and "application inalterability".
A proper relational structure decomposes data into entities and relationships. The idea is that when a value changes, it only changes in one place. This is the reasoning behind the various "normal forms" of data.
Most user applications do not want to see data in a normalized form. They want to see data in a denormalized form, often with lots of fields gathered together on one line. Similarly, an update might involve several fields in different entities, but to a user, it is just one thing.
A relational database can maintain the structure of the data and allow you to combine data for different viewpoints. It has nothing to do with your second point. Application independence (I think this is a better word than "inalterability") depends on how the application is designed. A well-designed application has a well-design application programming interface (also known as an API).
It seems that a lot of database developers think that the physical data structure is good enough as an API. However, this is often a bad design decision. Often, a better design decision is to have all database operations performed through stored procedures, views, and user defined functions. In other words, don't directly update a table. Create a stored procedure called something usp_table_update that takes fields and updates the table.
With such a structure, you can modify the underlying database structure and maintain user applications at the same time.
what says that nothing will change for the user if the database
structure changes?
Well, database structures can change for many reasons. On a high level, I see two possibilities:
Performance / internal database reasons
Business rules / the world outside the application changed
#1: in this case, the DBA has decided to change some structure for performance or ... In that case an extra layer, for example using stored procedures, views etc. can help to "hide" the change to the application/user. Or a good data-layer on the application side could be helpfull.
#2: if the outside world changes, or your business rules change, NOTHING you can do on the database level can keep that away from the user. For example a company that always has used only ONE currency in the database is suddenly going international: in that case your database has to be adopted to support multi currency and it will need serious alteration in the database and for the user.
For example, I have relation R (and created application which uses this relation) and the database admin desides to make a decomposion of R to R1 and R2. How the application inalternability is ensured for the end user?
The admin should create a view which would represent R1 and R2 as the original R.
I'm about to start a Database Design that will simply manage users under companies.
Each company will have a admin area that can manage users
Each company will have around 25.000 users
Client believes to have around 50 companies to start
My main question is
Should I create tables based on Companies? like
users_company_0001 users_company_0002 users_company_0003 ...
as each company will never use "other" users and nothing will need to sum/count different tables in all user_company (a simple JOIN will do the trick, though it's more expensive (time) it will work as having the main picture, this will never be needed.
or should I just create a users table to have (50 x 25000) 1 250 000 users (and growing).
I'm thinking about the first option, though, I'm not sure how would I use Entity Framework on such layout... I would probably need to go back to the 90's and generate my Data Logic Layer by hand.
has it will be a simple call to Store Procedures containing the Company Id
What will you suggest?
The system application will be ASP.NET (probably MVC, I'm still trying to figure this out as all my knowledge is on webforms, though I saw Scott Hanselman MVC videos - seams easy - but I know it will not be that easy as problems will come and I will take more time to fix them), plus Microsoft SQL.
Even though you've described this as a 1-many relationship, I'd still design the DB as many-to-many to guard against a future change in requirements. Something like:
Having worked with a multi-terabyte SQL Server database, and having experience with hundreds of tables over the course of my career with multi-million rows, I can tell you with full assurance that SQL Server can handle a your company and users tables without partitioning. It's always there when you need it, but your worry shouldn't be about your tables - pick the simplest schema that meets your needs. If you want to do something to optimize performance, your bottleneck will almost assuredly be your disks. Don't buy large, slow disks. Get yourself a bunch of small, high RPM disks and spread your data out across them as much as possible, and don't share disks with your logs and your data. With databases, you're almost always better off achieving performance with good hardware, a good disk subsystem, and proper indexing. Don't compromise and over complicate your schema trying to anticipate performance - you'll regret it. I've seen really big databases where that sort of thing was necessary, but yours ain't it.
re: Should I create tables based on Companies?
yes
like
users_company_0001 users_company_0002 users_company_0003
no, like
companyID companyName, contactID
or should I just create a users table to have (50 x 25000) 1 250 000 users (and growing)
yes
I think you should create separate tables for Company and User. Then
a third table to connect the two: CompanyAdmin. Something like:
Company(Company_Id, Company_name, ...)
User(User_Id, User_name, ...)
CompanyAdmin(Company_id, User_id)
This way you can add users and/or companies without affecting the number
of tables you need to manage. It is generally a bad design where you need
to modify the database (ie. add tables) when new data (companies) are added to the system.
With proper indexing, the join costs in a database containing
a few million rows should not be a problem.
Finally, if you ever need to change or record additional information about
Companies, Users or the relationship between them, this setup should
have the least amount of impact on your application.
Looking for strategies for a very large table with data maintained for reporting and historical purposes, a very small subset of that data is used in daily operations.
Background:
We have Visitor and Visits tables which are continuously updated by our consumer facing site. These tables contain information on every visit and visitor, including bots and crawlers, direct traffic that does not result in a conversion, etc.
Our back end site allows management of the visitor's (leads) from the front end site. Most of the management occurs on a small subset of our visitors (visitors that become leads). The vast majority of the data in our visitor and visit tables is maintained only for a much smaller subset of user activity (basically reporting type functionality). This is NOT an indexing problem, we have done all we can with indexing and keeping our indexes clean, small, and not fragmented.
ps: We do not currently have the budget or expertise for a data warehouse.
The problem:
We would like the system to be more responsive to our end users when they are querying, for instance, the list of their assigned leads. Currently the query is against a huge data set of mostly irrelevant data.
I am pondering a few ideas. One involves new tables and a fairly major re-architecture, I'm not asking for help on that. The other involves creating redundant data, (for instance a Visitor_Archive and a Visitor_Small table) where the larger visitor and visit tables exist for inserts and history/reporting, the smaller visitor1 table would exist for managing leads, sending lead an email, need leads phone number, need my list of leads, etc..
The reason I am reaching out is that I would love opinions on the best way to keep the Visitor_Archive and the Visitor_Small tables in sync...
Replication? Can I use replication to replicate only data with a certain column value (FooID = x)
Any other strategies?
It sounds like your table is a perfect candidate for partitioning. Since you didn't mention it, I'll briefly describe it, and give you some links, in case you're not aware of it.
You can divide the rows of a table/index across multiple physical or logical devices, and is specifically meant to improve performance of data sets where you may only need a known subset of the data to work with at any time. Partitioning a table still allows you to interact with it as one table (you don't need to reference partitions or anything in your queries), but SQL Server is able to perform several optimizations on queries that only involve one partition of the data. In fact, in Designing Partitions to Manage Subsets of Data, the AdventureWorks examples pretty much match your exact scenario.
I would do a bit of research, starting here and working your way down: Partitioned Tables and Indexes.
Simple solution: create separate table, de-normalized, with all fields in it. Create stored procedure, that will update this table on your schedule. Create SQl Agent job to call the SP.
Index the table as you see how it's queried.
If you need to purge history, create another table to hold it and another SP to populate it and clean main report table.
You may end up with multiple report tables - it's OK - space is cheap these days.