My project will allow users to create and work on multiple projects, so most of my tables will accordingly have a ProjectID column.
However one of those tables, let's call it ProjectData will become very large very quickly, as each project can have hundreds of thousands of rows. To me it makes more sense to have a table for each Project, thus 001Data, 002Data, etc.
Does EntityFramework allow for such single model -> multiple table mappings? Perhaps it would be better to have separate databases for each project, but that too provides its own set of challenges.
Related
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?
NOTE: I have never done this before:
What are some steps or documentation to help normalize tables/views in a database? Currently, there are several tables and views in a database that do not use primary/foreign key concept and sort of repeats same information in multiple tables.
I'd like to clean this up and also somewhat setup a process that would keep relationship updated. Example, if a person zipcode changes or record is removed then it automatically updates its relationship with other tables row/s.
NOTE:* My question is to normalize existing database tables. The tables are live so how do I approach normalization? Do I create a brand new database with table structure I want and then move data to that database? Once data moved, I plug in stored procedures and imports?
This question is somewhat broad, so I will only explain the concept.
Views are generally used for reporting/data presentation purposes and therefore I would not try to normalise them. Your case may be different.
You also need to be clear about primary / foreign key concept:
Lack of actual constraints (e.g. PRIMARY KEY, FOREIGN KEY) defined on the table does not mean that the tables do not have logical relationships on columns.
Data maintenance can be implemented in Triggers.
If you really have a situation where a lot of highly de-normalised data exists in tables for no apparent reason and you want to normalise it then this problem can be approached in two ways:
Full re-write - I would recommend for small / new Apps
"Gradual" re-factoring - large / mature applications, where underlying data relationships are complex and / or may not be fully understood.
Within "Gradual" re-factoring there are a few ways as well:
2.a. You take 1 old table and replace it with a new table and at the same time change all code that uses the old table to use the new table. For large systems this can be problematic as you simply may not be aware of all places that reference this table. On the other hand, it may be useful for situations where the table structure change is not significant and/or when the number of dependencies is small.
2.b. Another way is to create new table(s) (in the same database) in the shape / form you desire. The current tables should be replaced with Views that return identical data (to old tables) but sourced from "new" tables. This approach removes / minimises the need to modify all dependencies immediately. The drawback is that the View that replaces the old table can become rather complex, especially if View Instead Of Triggers are needed to be implemented.
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.
I have some tables which should add to my database every year and name of databases contains the year (like sell2005) and iv'e written some ef queries on these tables ,and queries can only be on a single entity (like sell2005) but what should i do when sell2006 or sell2007 add ? how can i manage them with that single query which iv'e written before?
thank you.
There is no easy way. EF is simply not tool for this scenario. For EF you must have "single table" so you must either use partitioning with one real database table partitioned by year or you must build a view on top of these tables.
The problem is that in EF you have strict relation between classes and tables. You cannot have single class mapped to multiple tables even if they are exactly same (except inheritance which is not solution for you). So the workaround would require to have multiple SSDL/MSL mappings - one for each table and construct correct context instance with correct mapping for every query. As I know dynamic changes of mapping are not possible (except modifying SSDL/MSL files before using them).
When use entity framework for DAL tier, VS 2010 can create edmx for each database.
Question:
If I have a database with many tables, should I create only one edmx for all tables or mutiple edmx files? for example, maybe all security tables for one edmx file, other tables for another edmx file. If there is more than one, then in other tiers, there will have more then on ObjectContext in code for business logic.
Which one it the best solution for this case?
I've done this before when experimenting with AdventureWorks. If you have a large database with lots of tables, and the tables are segmented into separate schemas (like the Purchasing, Sales, HumanResources schemas in AdventureWorks) then it may work well to create multiple models. They don't have to be separate schemas- any two groups of related tables where there are no relations between the groups would work.
You'd want to make sure that you include all related tables in each model so that you don't have to try to join entities across models.