Hello Tableau Community,
Our team is considering switching to virtual connections to better maintain row level security.
However we are not sure what is the best choice when it comes to grouping multiple tables in a single connection or spearate in more VCs.
We have all our tables in a single database and plan on using "Extracts Only" VCs.
Here are some of our concerns (that might be rooted in misconcetpions):
Concerns about having multiple tables in on VC:
Will extracts become big and slow? What happens if one table fails -
will entire extract fail?
Concerns with having multiple VCs with
single or few tables in each
How can we relate the talbes in workbooks? Relationship model does
not seem to work for different published data sources.
Cumbersome to use multiple connections in one workbook
Any recommendations or insights?
Related
Based on the above image, there are certain tables I want to be in the Internal Database (right hand side). The other tables I want to be replicated in the external database.
In reality there's only one set of values that SHOULD NOT be replicated across. The rest of the database can be replicated. Basically the actual price columns in the prices table cannot be replicated across. It should stay within the internal database.
Because the vendors are external to the network, they have no access to the internal app.
My plan is to create a replicated version of the same app and allow vendors to submit quotations and picking items.
Let's say the replicated tables are at least quotations and quotation_line_items. These tables should be writeable (in terms of data for INSERTs, UPDATEs, and DELETEs) at both the external database and the internal database. Hence at both databases, the data in the quotations and quotation_line_items table are writeable and should be replicated across in both directions.
The data in the other tables are going to be replicated in a single direction (from internal to external) except for the actual raw prices columns in the prices table.
The quotation_line_items table will have a price_id column. However, the raw price values in the prices table should not appear in the external database.
Ultimately, I want the data to be consistent for the replicated tables on both databases. I am okay with synchronous replication, so a bit of delay (say, a couple of second for the write operations) is fine.
I came across pglogical https://github.com/2ndQuadrant/pglogical/tree/REL2_x_STABLE
and they have the concept of PUBLISHER and SUBSCRIBER.
I cannot tell based on the readme which one would be acting as publisher and subscriber and how to configure it for my situation.
That won't work. With the setup you are dreaming of, you will necessarily end up with replication conflicts.
How do you want to prevent that data are modified in a conflicting fashion in the two databases? If you say that that won't happen, think again.
I believe that you would be much better off using a single database with two users: one that can access the “secret” table and one that cannot.
If you want to restrict access only to certain columns, use a view. Simple views are updateable in PostgreSQL.
It is possible with BDR replication which uses pglogical. On a basic level by allocating ranges of key ids to each node so writes are possible in both locations without conflict. However BDR is now a commercial paid for product.
We use a cloud based system to handle patient data.
The vendors of that system log ship a copy of their SQL database to use and we restore it locally so we can do our reporting. Those local tables are locked down and set read-only. We don't have control over it.
Now comes the interesting part.
We will create another company that will be under our umbrella. The cloud based vendor can't merge two companies on the same database. That means that we will get a second set of a copy of the database of that new company. Hopefully they will contain the same physical layout but based on my experience with the vendor that will not be the case.
So far we got
DB #1 called "CompanyA"
DB #2 called "CompanyB"
Their structure will be the "same". So we can easily do unions between objects of the two DBs.
For reporting purposes the vendor recommend us to use their slow custom made views. So whatever code we write with those views it won't break if they do an alter to the internal tables of their system. They don't index the views so creating an external view that UNIONS the same view under CompanyA and CompanyB isn't efficient.
Creating a staging process to pull only the data of the objects (table/view) that we use is another option but I don't like the idea of having duplicated data in our systems.
We can buy a system like the one Denodo for data virtualization. This system allows us to create special views (virtual tables) and point our reports or ETLs to those virtual tables. For example our ETL sees only one patient table but underneath that there is a combination of the data from CompanyA.Patients and CompanyB.Patients.
Our end goal is to have a process that is scalable in case our organization decides to keep adding companies into our portfolio and integrating them into our system isn't a challenge like we have now.
So here are my final questions:
1- Does SQL Server has a feature to create virtual tables on the latest releases?
2- Any other recommendation ?
We are involved in quite a new development in which we are remaking our current web shop platform.
In the current platform we do not use EF6 neither other ORM but store procedures to access to the db, but in the new building is what we do.
We have a doubt regarding database design of the new platform. In the current platform we use several different databases depending on the content of them.
For example, we have dedicated databases to store information for products catalogs other dedicated db for handling orders.
Currently all data access is done through stored procedures, so we have no problem with the links between different databases.
The problem appears to us now when we have started to use EF6. In this case each DB is associated with a context and it is not possible to know data from one context to another
unless we implement directly in the source code these relationships using various contexts. It looks like these means we will lose the power of EF6.
The questions we have are:
Is it a bad design maintaining different databases for the same application using EF6?
in case this is a poor design and choosing for a single database, is the performance going to be optimum even driving hundreds of tables (almost 1000) with several TBytes of information?
in the other hand, in the case of opting for the design in which several bbdd appear (it would be much better in our case), what is the best way to handle them EF6?
Thank you very much for your help!
First of all EF is not written to be cross database. You can't write cross database (cross context) queries, lazy load does not work and so on.
This is a big limitation in your case.
EF could work with several schema (actually I don't use it and I don't like it but is just my opinion).
You can use your stored procedures with EF but as I understand you are thinking to stop to use them.
In my experience I wrote several applications with more than one database but the use of the different databases was very limited. In this cases I use cross database views (i.e. one database per company and some common tables with views in company databases that selects data in common tables). In your case, if the tables are sharded everywhere I don't think this is a way you can choose.
So, in my opinion you could change the approach.
If you have backups problems you could shard the huge tables (I think facts tables and tables with pictures) and create cross database views. BTW, also, cross database referential integrity is not supported in SQL Server so you need to write triggers to check it.
If you need to split different application functions (i.e. WMS, CRM and so on) you can use namespaces without bothering about how tables are stored in the DB.
We have a SaaS application where each tenant has its own database in Postgres. How would I apply a patch to all the databses? For example if I want to add a table or add a column to a table, I have to either write a program that loops through all databases and execute a SQL against them or using pgadmin, go through them one by one.
Is there smarter and/or faster way?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Yes, there's a smarter way.
Don't create a new database for each tenant. If everything is in one database then you only need to alter one database.
Pick one database, alter each table to have the column TENANT and add this to the primary key. Then insert into this database every record for all tenants and drop the other databases (obviously considerably more work than this as your application will need to be changed).
The differences with your approach are extensively discussed elsewhere:
What problems will I get creating a database per customer?
What are the advantages of using a single database for EACH client?
Multiple schemas versus enormous tables
Practicality of multiple databases per client vs one database
Multi-tenancy - single database vs multiple database
If you don't put everything in one database then I'm afraid you have to alter them all individually, and doing it programatically would be simplest.
At a higher level, all multi-tenant applications follow one of three approaches:
One tenant's data lives in one database,
One tenant's data lives in one schema, or
Add a tenant_id / account_id column to your tables (shared schema).
I usually find that developers use the following criteria when they evaluate these different approaches.
Isolation: Since you can put each tenant into its own database in one hand, and have tenants share the same table on the other, this becomes the most apparent dimension. If you provide your users raw SQL access or you're in a regulated industry such as healthcare, you may need strict guarantees from your database. That said, PostgreSQL 9.5 comes with row level security policies that makes this less of a concern for most applications.
Extensibility: If your tenants are sharing the same schema (approach #3), and your tenants have fields that varies between them, then you need to think about how to merge these fields.
This article on multi-tenant databases has a great summary of different approaches. For example, you can add a dozen columns, call them C1, C2, and so forth, and have your application infer the actual data in this column based on the tenant_id. PostgresQL 9.4 comes with JSONB support and natively allows you to use semi-structured fields to express variations between different tenants' data.
Scaling: Another criteria is how easily your database would scale-out. If you create a tenant per database or schema (#1 or #2 above), your application can make use of existing Ruby Gems or [Django packages][1] to simplify app integration. That said, you'll need to manually manage your tenants' data and the machines they live on. Similarly, you'll need to build your own sharding logic to propagate foreign key constraints and ALTER TABLE commands.
With approach #3, you can use existing open source scaling solutions, such as Citus. For example, this blog post describes how to easily shard a multi-tenant app with Postgres.
it's time for me to give back to the community :) So after 4 years, our multi-tenant platform is in production and I would like to share the following observations/experiences with all of you.
We used a database per each tenant. This has given us extreme flexibility as the size of the databases in the backups are not huge and hence we can easily import them into our staging environment for customers issues.
We use Liquibase for database development and upgrades. This has been a tremendous help to us, allowing us to package the entire build into a simple war file. All changes are easily versioned and managed very efficiently. There is a bit of learning curve here an there but nothing substantial. 2-5 days can significantly save you time.
Given that we use Spring/JPA/Hibernate, we use a technique called Dynamic Data Source Routing. So when a user logs-in, we find the related datasource with a lookup and connect them to the session to the right database. That's also when the Liquibase scripts get applied for updates.
This is, for now, I will come back with more later on.
Well, there are problems with one database for all tenants in our case for sure.
The backup file gets huge and becomes almost not practical hard to manage
For troubleshooting, we need to restore customer's data in our dev env, we just use that customer's backup file and usually the file is not as big as if we were to use one database for all customers.
Again, Liquibase has been key in allowing to manage updates across all the tenants seamlessly and without any issues. Without Liquibase, I can see lots of complications with this approach. So Liquibase, Liquibase and more Liquibase.
I also suspect that we would need a more powerful hardware to manage a huge database with large joins across millions of records vs much lighter database with much smaller queries.
In case of problems, the service doesn't go down for everyone and there will be limited to one or few tenants.
In general, for our purposes, this has been a great architectural decision and we are benefiting from it every day. One time we had one customer that didn't have their archiving active and their database size grew to over 3 GB. With offshore teams and slower internet as well as storage/bandwidth prices, one can see how things may become complicated very quickly.
Hope this helps someone.
--Rex
Currently, all my collections are maintained in a single database.
I'm a little confused on when I should separate my collections into multiple databases, as some of the collections aren't necessarily related.
multiple databases:
can refine security permissions
separation of concerns
single database
easy
There are a set of tables I access all the time, and a set of tables I access about once a month. It makes some sense to open a persistent connection to a database containing my always-used tables, and open a connection to a database containing the sparsely-used tables when needed.
But is there any performance difference to having all my data in the same database? Is there any general rule-of-thumb to when to use multiple databases (other than production, development, etc.)
Check here for a similar question with some useful, more in-depth answers: Is it better to use multiple databases when you are managing independent sets of things in MongoDB?