Ed,
Thank you for your reply.
That scenario did cross my mind, but then we would have a huge table with
millions upon millions, maybe billions of records.
But that could be the best design.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Olivera
[mailto:mssqldba-ezmlmshield-x27798515.[Email address protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 8:23 AM
To: LazyDBA Discussion
Subject: RE: [BULK] Database Development
Myra, I think there should be another scenario that you should
consider: one database with 6 tables and the tables modified so the
client can be identified as the owner of the corresponding rows. I don't
know how that would work out in terms of size but 6 or 300 databases
seem to me an awful lot of duplication of work. I have the opposite
problem here at my new job: some databases have hundreds of tables that
should go to different databases but legacy systems are not easy to
change. I don't like to have too many tables in one database, my thought
is that if there are that many there should be a way to separate among
common traits, but I also don't like databases with too few tables or on
the bases of clients. Just some thought to round up your redesign
process.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Myra [mailto:mssqldba-ezmlmshield-x247390.[Email address protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 8:12 AM
To: LazyDBA Discussion
Subject: RE: [BULK] Database Development
Importance: Low
The tables are the same across databases.
Each database will have the same 6 tables.
Each of the 6 tables are different in structure, but once again, each
database has the very same 6 tables.
Thanks,
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Olivera
[mailto:mssqldba-ezmlmshield-x76457567.[Email address protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 8:05 AM
To: LazyDBA Discussion
Subject: RE: [BULK] Database Development
Are the tables the same across databases?
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Myra
[mailto:mssqldba-ezmlmshield-x92389156.[Email address protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 7:59 AM
To: LazyDBA Discussion
Subject: [BULK] Database Development
Importance: Low
A new SQL project was just "handed-down" to me.
Right now we have 1 database for each customer. Each database has 6
tables that have the same structure as every other database. Before the
project ends, there will be around 300 databases (1 for each customer).
Since we are still in the early stages of developement and not beyond
the "point of no return", I am re-evaluating the design. Would it be
better to have 6 databases with 300 tables in each database (1 table for
each of the 300 customers in 6 different databases) or keep the original
design of 300 databases with 6 tables in each database?
We deal from 100,000 to 25 million records for 1 customer. I have
thought of the maintenance of 300 databases, compared to the fact that
if one database had 300 tables and that database became corrupt and we
couldn't restore the backup then we have lost major information for 300
mad customers. Are is there a better/different design?
Thank you for your time.
M
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TO REPLY TO EVERBODY , PLEASE CLICK REPLY-ALL, NOT JUST REPLY Website :
http://www.LazyDBA.com To unsubscribe:
http://www.lazydba.com/unsubscribe.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TO REPLY TO EVERBODY , PLEASE CLICK REPLY-ALL, NOT JUST REPLY Website :
http://www.LazyDBA.com To unsubscribe:
http://www.lazydba.com/unsubscribe.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TO REPLY TO EVERBODY , PLEASE CLICK REPLY-ALL, NOT JUST REPLY Website :
http://www.LazyDBA.com To unsubscribe:
http://www.lazydba.com/unsubscribe.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TO REPLY TO EVERBODY , PLEASE CLICK REPLY-ALL, NOT JUST REPLY
Website : http://www.LazyDBA.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.lazydba.com/unsubscribe.html
MS Sql Server LazyDBA home page