I'm having trouble determining the difference between CREATE SCHEMA and CREATE DATABASE. I'm of the understanding that they are the same and that it's usual to use the latter.
Is that so?
Thanks!
They are definitely not that same! A database may consist of several schemas. Schemas are basically securable objects that can contain other securable objects such as tables, views, procedures etc. Securable in this context means something that is owned by someone and to which operations can be granted.
In MySQL, the two commands are synonymous from 5.0.2 upwards - this is perhaps why you had the understanding they were the same.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/create-database.html
However, as the others have mentioned, Schemas and Databases are different types of entity in other RDBMS.
CREATE schema is to create a schema above the database. So can a CREATE SCHEMA create tables, views, etc etc.
CREATE SCHEMA can't create a database.
Create schema creates new schema while create database creates database. See this link for more information about schemas: User-Schema Separation
Related
When designing databases, I have been following the conventions of the Microsoft AdventureWorks sample database. They use schemas to logically separate groups of tables, e.g. Person, Production or Sales. It makes a lot of sense from a security point of view as well as from an organizational pov.
However, I have some tables that are used in multiple schemas. For example, a Country table that contains all countries. It wouldn't make sense to assign a sepecific schema to it, e.g. Person.Country or Production.Country as it is used in tables of different schemas.
Therefore, which schema do I assign it to?
you can use the "dbo" schema, its the default schema for sql-server and many others.
I hope someone can help me to learn about Postgres schema and databases.
I have Postgres database called db1 and it has table calls table1.
all these objects are in default schema called public.
Then I created another database called db2 and created another table with same name table1.
I didn't got any error but both tables are in same schema called public.
I created indexes for both of these tables and they both refer the table as public.table1.
I wonder a setup like this will give issue or not? If yes, then should I create different schemas for each database if I'm going to use same table names in all databases?
In Postgres a database is the highest level "container". Then schemas follow. There can be schemas with the same name in different databases (but no in the same database). The other databases won't "see" them. So there is no problem in your setup.
Can we have two Postgres databases in same schema?
The answer is no. The relevant PostgreSQL documentation shows the hierarchy:
database.schema.table
This diagram (taken from this answer) is useful to visualise the relationship:
I read a write up about database schema.
A SQL Server schema is a container of objects. For example you may have a large enterprise application and then is a good practice to use different schemas for different purposes (e.g. put HR related tables into HR schema, accounting related tables into Accounting schema and so on). A schema can be owned by any user, and the ownership is transferable.
They said: use different schemas for different purposes (e.g. put HR related tables into HR schema, accounting related tables into Accounting schema and so on)
Do they mean create new database for HR and again new database for accounting?
Because when we create a database then a single schema is created so we cannot create multiple schema in single SQL Server database as far I know.
So please tell me how is it possible to create different schemas for different purposes in a single database? Thanks
Purpose of Schema
Schemas in sql server were introduced in sql server 2005, The main purpose was to eliminate User's ownership of objects in sql server. or you can say to separate users from objects in sql server.
Prior to Sql server 2005 objects in sql server (Tables, views, Store proceders etc) were owned by users. Typically the user who created it.
And that user had to give permissions to other users to use that particular object.
Imagine a scenario where 12 developers are working in a company and all developers are creating sql objects left, right centre. Now all the developers had to give permissions to other 11 developers if they had to work objects created by that one developer. quite a bit of mess isnt it??
Since sql server 2005 came with Schema. All the objects were Owned by a Schema Not a User. if you havent created any custom schema it will be under default Schema dbo.
Now anyone who has permission to dbo schema has permission to any object under dbo schema.
Why it is a good idea to create different schemas for different departments in your case. It may be because HR people doesnt need to know anything about Finance stuff. so you can create a HR schema and give HR people permission only on HR schema. and vice versa with finance people. That will restrict their access to only objects related to their departments.
And we can create multiple Schemas in one database if you have ever worked with Adventureworks database, it has Schemas like 'Production', 'Sales' etc etc.
Read here to learn more about schemas in sql server.
No they mean create a schema. Create schema works within a database. There are all sorts of uses for it, I tend to think of it as either namespacing or a more natural way of partitioning a smallish database and keeping role based access, where you can think of schema as a user group.
Unfortunately, there are two meanings to the word "schema" in the database world.
One means the overall design of the database tables. "Show me your database schema", for example. This would be the collection of "create table" commands, or and ERD diagram.
The other is a synonym for "namespace", which the article in question is referring to. You can store tables, functions etc in different namespaces to ease cognitive load or use for security grouping.
I am creating a database with about 40 different tables.
I have heard about people grouping tables into database 'schemas' - what are the implications of using different schemas in a database? Can tables from one schema still relate to another schema? What are the functional differences between different schemas?
Where are schemas located in SSMS? They are rightfully placed under the security tab.
Lets use the AdventureWorks databases.
If you assign security at the schema level, purchasing users will only have access to the purchasing table and sales people will have only access to the sales tables.
In fact, they will not even see the other tables if you set it up correctly.
If you combine schemas with creating tables/indexes on file groups, now you can place all the sales people onto file group sales and purchasing on file group purchasing.
IE - Spreading the I/O load.
In short, I think schemas are an unknown and little used feature.
Check out my blog article on this fact.
http://craftydba.com/?p=4326
I assume that you are talking about SQL Server. You can join and reference between tables in different schemas. I see it mostly used for visual organization and/or for managing objects' permission (you can assign permissions at the schema-level).
If you are worried about any negative effects of doing dbo.table vs custom.table - there aren't any that I imagine you would encounter.
Schemas are just collections of database objects. They are useful for maintaining separation of sets of objects.
There is always at least one schema. For SQL Server it is named dbo.
One implication of having multiple schemas is that you will have to manage permissions for the various schemas. This is usually done via a role that's associated with the schema.
Objects in one schema are available to objects from another, and there is no performance penalty in writing queries that use objects from multiple schemas.
what is the difference between creating ordinary tables using 'dbo' and creating tables using schemas.How this schema works & supports the tables
A schema is just a container for DB objects - tables, views etc. It allows you to structure a very large database solution you might have. As a sample, have a look at the newer AdventureWorks sample databases - they have a number of schemata included, like "HumanResources" and so forth.
A schema can be a security boundary, e.g. you can give or deny certain users access to a schema as a whole. A schema can also be used to keep tables with the same name apart, e.g. you could create a "user schema" for each user of your application, and have a "Settings" table in each of them, holding that user's settings, e.g. "Bob.Settings", "Mary.Settings" etc.
In my experience, schemata are not used very often in SQL Server. It's a way to organize your database objects into containers, but unless you have a huge amount of database objects, it's probably something you won't really use much.
dbo is a schema.
See if this helps.
Schema seems to be a way of categorizing objects (tables/stored procs/views etc).
Think of it as a bucket to organize related objects based on functionality.
I am not sure, how logged in SQL user is tied to a specific schema though.