Is there a suggested way to use "schemas" in mysql? For example, if I have one database called events and then I want to have two environments dev and prod, what might be a way to do that? Currently I add a table prefix, but it seems a a bit hack-ish:
you create a separate database for that, because MySQL does not have the concept of schema like e.g. PostgreSQL does.
You create one database for production e.g. prod_database with the table names event and event_type. and one database for dev e.g. dev_database, with the same table names event and event_type. As you always want to have the same table names in different environments.
You could (and should) even use the same database name, if you host the database on different servers. Which for production and development/staging would also make sense e.g. to test server version updates on one setup without affecting production.
Related
Recently I changed some table schema and procedures in DEV environment. Before i deploy it to production environment, I want to have a change list.
How to track or show the schema and procedures change history in MySQL? For example, show which tables have been changed after 2011-06-10, which procedures have been created or updated after 2011-06-08.
This is a longer route, but, you could you create a data dictionary. You can date them, and then represent the different schema version, or even changes to the schema. They are easily tracked with your favorite version control tool.
information_schema tables have create date fields which would get you a list of added tables and procedures etc after a particular date but modifications can't be identified by this method. However, a much simpler method would be to restore a prod backup to a different name and then use the mysqldiff utility to identify the changes.
I got a case where I have several databases running on the same server. There's one database for each client (company1, company2 etc). The structure of each of these databases should be identical with the same tables etc, but the data contained in each db will be different.
What I want to do is keep a master db that will contain no data, but manage the structure of all the other databases, meaning if I add, remove or alter any tables in the master db the changes will also be mirrored out to the other databases.
Example: If a table named Table1 is created in the master DB, the other databases (company1, company2 etc) will also get a table1.
Currently it is done by a script that monitors the database logs for changes made to the master database and running the same queries on each of the other databases. Looked into database replication, but from what I understand this will also bring along the data from the master database, which is not an option in this case.
Can I use some kind of logic against database schemas to do it?
So basicly what I'm asking here is:
How do I make this sync happen in the best possible way? Should I use a script monitoring the logs for changes or some other method?
How do I avoid existing data getting corrupted if a table is altered? (data getting removed if a table is dropped is okay)
Is syncing from a master database considered a good way to do what I wish (having an easy maintainable structure across several datbases)?
How will making updates like this affect the performance of the databases?
Hope my question was clear and that this is not a duplicate of some other thread. If more information and/or a better explantion of my problem is needed, let me know:)
You can get the list of tables for a given schema using:
select TABLE_NAME from information_schema.tables where TABLE_SCHEMA='<master table name>';
Use this list for a script or stored procedure ala:
create database if not exists <name>;
use <name>;
for each ( table_name in list )
create table if not exists <name>.table_name like <master_table>.table_name;
Now that Im thinking about it you might be able to put a trigger on the 'information_schema.tables' db that would call the 'create/maintain' script. Look for inserts and react accordingly.
I need to convert data that already exists in a MySQL database, to a SQL Server database.
The caveat here is that the old database was poorly designed, but the new one is in a proper 3N form. Does any one have any tips on how to go about doing this? I have SSMS 2005.
Can I use this to connect to the MySQL DB and create a DTS? Or do I need to use SSIS?
Do I need to script out the MySQL DB and alter every statement to "insert" into the SQL Server DB?
Has anyone gone through this before? Please HELP!!!
See this link. The idea is to add your MySQL database as a linked server in SQL Server via the MySQL ODBC driver. Then you can perform any operations you like on the MySQL database via SSMS, including copying data into SQL Server.
Congrats on moving up in the RDBMS world!
SSIS is designed to do this kind of thing. The first step is to map out manually where each piece of data will go in the new structure. So your old table had four fields, in your new structure fileds1 and 2 go to table a and field three and four go to table b, but you also need to have the autogenerated id from table a. Make notes as to where data types have changed and you may need to make adjustments or where you have required fileds where the data was not required before etc.
What I usually do is create staging tables. Put the data in the denormalized form in one staging table and then move to normalized staging tables and do the clean up there and add the new ids as soon as you have them to the staging tables. One thing you will need to do if you are moving from a denormalized database to a normalized one is that you will need to eliminate the duplicates from the parent tables before inserting them into the actual production tables. You may also need to do dataclean up as there may be required fileds in the new structure that were not required in the old or data converstion issues becasue of moving to better datatypes (for instance if you stored dates in the old database in varchar fields but properly move to datetime in the new db, you may have some records which don't have valid dates.
ANother issue you need to think about is how you will convert from the old record ids to the new ones.
This is not a an easy task, but it is doable if you take your time and work methodically. Now is not the time to try shortcuts.
What you need is an ETL (extract, transform, load) tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extract,_transform,_load#Tools
I don't really know how far an 'ETL' tool will get you depending on the original and new database designs. In my career I've had to do more than a few data migrations and we usually always had to design a special utility which would update a fresh database with records from the old database, and yes we coded it complete with all the update/insert statements that would transform data.
I don't know how many tables your database has, but if they are not too many then you could consider going the grunt root. That's one technique that's guaranteed to work after all.
If you go to your database in SSMS and right-click, under tasks should be an option for "Import Data". You can try to use that. It's basically just a wizard that creates an SSIS package for you, which it can then either run for you automatically or which you can save and then alter as needed.
The big issue is how you need to transform the data. This goes into a lot of specifics which you don't include (and which are probably too numerous for you to include here anyway).
I'm certain that SSIS can handle whatever transformations you need to do to change it from the old format to the new. An alternative though would be to just import the tables into MS SQL as-is into staging tables, then use SQL code to transform the data into the 3NF tables. It's all a matter of what your most comfortable with. If you go the second route, then the import process that I mentioned above in SSMS could be used. It will even create the destination tables for you. Just be sure that you give them unique names, maybe prefixing them with "STG_" or something.
Davud mentioned linked servers. That's definitely another way that you can go (and got my upvote). Personally, I prefer to copy the tables over into MS SQL first since linked servers can sometimes have weirdness, especially when it comes to data types not mapping between different providers. Having the tables all in MS SQL will also probably be a bit faster and saves time if you have to rerun or correct portions of the data. As I said though, the linked server method would probably be fine too.
I have done this going the other direction and SSIS works fine, although I might have needed to use a script task to deal with slight data type weirdness. SSIS does ETL.
After dragging two tables in from one database, I switch to another and drag a table in. Now I get a message if I want to replace the connection string with the new one. I want tables from multiple databases in one DBML. Is this possible?
It is entirely possible to reference multiple databases within the same DBML, PROVIDED those databases reside on the same SQL Server.
In Visual Studio, right-click on the DBML, click "Open with..." , and select XML (Text) Editor with Encoding.
You will see your first table that you dragged in looks like this:
<Table Name="dbo.MyTable1fromMyDatabase1" Member="MyTable1fromMyDatabase1">
For your tables from other databases you wish to add, enter them like this:
<Table Name="MyDatabase2.dbo.MyTable1fromMyDatabase2" Member="MyTable1fromMyDatabase2">
This will work assuming the same login works for both databases, and your LINQ expressions can now query across both databases!
I don't believe that what you're looking for is possible, since the DataContext would then not have any easy way of resolving results from two separate databases.
If you're looking to create domain objects from two separate databases, then your best bet would be to have two separate DBML's, then use a bridge (GOF) or some other related design pattern to instantiate your domain objects.
Another option is to create a server link on on database that points to the other and make aliases to the remote tables from the "local" DB. I believe then you'd be able to reference them as if they were all in the same database.
We can also create a view that queries the table in the other database. We can select, insert and update this view, which will affect the table in the other database as well.
What is the use of SYNONYM in SQL Server 2008?
In some enterprise systems, you may have to deal with remote objects over which you have no control. For example, a database that is maintained by another department or team.
Synonyms can help you decouple the name and location of the underlying object from your SQL code. That way you can code against a synonym table even if the table you want is moved to a new server/database or renamed.
For example, I could write a query like this:
insert into MyTable
(...)
select ...
from remoteServer.remoteDatabase.dbo.Employee
but then if the server, or database, schema, or table changes it would impact my code. Instead I can create a synonym for the remote server and use the synonym instead:
insert into MyTable
(...)
select ...
from EmployeeSynonym
If the underlying object changes location or name, I only need to update my synonym to point to the new object.
http://www.mssqltips.com/sqlservertip/1820/use-synonyms-to-abstract-the-location-of-sql-server-database-objects/
Synonyms provide a great layer of abstraction, allowing us to use friendly and/or local names for verbosely named or remote tables, views, procedures and functions.
For Example
Consider you have the server1 and dbschema as ABC and table name as Employee and now you need to access the Employee table in your Server2 to perform a query operation.
So you have to use like Server1.ABC.Employee it exposes everything ServerName,SchemaName and TableName.
Instead of this you can create a synonym link Create Synonym EmpTable for Server1.ABC.Employee
So you can access like Select * from Peoples p1 inner join EmpTable emp where emp.Id=p1.ID
So it gives the advantages of Abstraction, Ease of change,scalability.
Later on if you want to change Servername or Schema or tablename, just you have to change the synonym alone and there is no need for you do search all and replace them.
If you used it than you will feel the real advantage of synonym. It can also combine with linked server and provide more advantages for developers.
An example of the usefulness of this
might be if you had a stored procedure
on a Users database that needed to
access a Clients table on another
production server. Assuming you
created the stored procedure in the
database Users, you might want to set
up a synonym such as the following:
USE Users; GO CREATE SYNONYM Clients
FOR Offsite01.Production.dbo.Clients;
GO
Now when writing the stored procedure
instead of having to write out that
entire alias every time you accessed
the table you can just use the alias
Clients. Furthermore, if you ever
change the location or the name of the
production database location all you
need to do is modify one synonym
instead of having to modify all of the
stored procedures which reference the
old server.
From: http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2008/01/07/sql-server-2005-introduction-and-explanation-to-synonym-helpful-t-sql-feature-for-developer/
Seems (from here) to create an alias for another table, so that you can refer to it easily. Like as
select * from table longname as ln
but permanent and pervasive.
Edit: works for user-defined functions, local and remote objects, not only tables.
I've been a long-time Oracle developer and making the jump to SQL Server.
But, another great use for synonyms is during the development cycle. If you have multiple developers modifying the same schema, you can use a synonym to point to your own schema rather than modifying the "production" table directly. That allows you to do your thing and other developers will not be impacted while you are making modifications and debugging.
I am glad to see these in SQL Server 2008...
A synonym is a database object that serves the following purposes:
Provides an alternative name for another database object, referred to as the base object, that can exist on a local or remote server.
Provides a layer of abstraction that protects a client application from changes made to the name or location of the base object.
Have never required the first one but the second issue is rather helpful.
msdn is your friend
You can actually create a synonym in an empty database and refer it to an object in another database, and thus make it work as it should even though it is in a completely empty database (besides the synonym that you created of course).