We are using Oracle Express as our development DB. When 2 programmers try to connect to it via jdbc we get dropped connections. Is this a limitation or Oracle Express edition? If we have 2 separate logins we still have this issue.
No, there is no limitation in Oracle Express preventing two users to connect at the same time. In fact, I use as a quite alright production (more than 20 concurrent connections) database in some projects.
It might be something else.
If you want to check what is the number of sessions allowed in your database you can issue:
SELECT name, value
FROM v$parameter
WHERE name = 'sessions'
Related
I am architecting a database where I expected to have 1,000s of tenants where some data will be shared between tenants. I am currently planning on using Postgres with row level security for tenant isolation. I am also using knex and Objection.js to model the database in node.js.
Most of the tutorials I have seen look like this where you create a separate knex connection per tenant. However, I've run into a problem on my development machine where after I create ~100 connections, I received this error: "remaining connection slots are reserved for non-replication superuser connections".
I'm investigating a few possible solutions/work-arounds, but I was wondering if anyone has been able to make this setup work the way I'm intending. Thanks!
Perhaps one solution might be to cache a limited number of connections, and destroy the oldest cached connection when the limit is reached. See this code as an example.
That code should probably be improved, however, to use a Map as the knexCache instead of an object, since a Map remembers the insertion order.
I have one machine on which several applications are hosted. Applications work on separated data and don't interact - each application only needs access to its own data. I want to use PostgreSQL as RDBMS. Which one of the following is best and why?
One global Postgres sever, one global database, one schema per application.
One global Postgres server, one database per application.
One Postgres server per application.
Feel free to suggest additional architectures if you think they would be better than the ones above.
The questions you need to ask yourself: does any application ever need to access data from another application (in the same SQL statement). If you can can answer that with a clear NO, then you should at least go for separate databases. Cross-database queries aren't that straight-forward in Postgres, so if the different applications do need a lot of data from other applications, then solution 1 might be deployment layout to think about. If this would only concern very few tables, then using foreign data wrappers with different databases might still be a better solution.
Solution 2 and 3 are more or less the same from the perspective of each application. One thing to keep in mind when deciding between 2 and 3 is availability. Some configuration changes to Postgres require a restart of the service. Is an outage of all applications acceptable in that case, even though the change was only necessary for one?
But you can always start with option 2 and then move database to different servers later.
Another question to ask is if all applications always use the same (major) Postgres version With solution 2 you must make sure that all applications are compatible with a new Postgres version if one of them wants to upgrade e.g. because of new features that the application wants to use.
Solution 1 is stupid : a SQL schema is not a database. Use SQL schema for one application that have multiple "parts" like "Poduction", "sales", "marketing", "finances"...
While the final volume of the data won't be too heavy and the number of user won't be too much, use only one PG cluster to facilitate administration tasks
If the volume of data or the number of user increases, it will be time to separates your different databases on new distinct PG clusters....
We recently migrated a large DB2 database to a new server. It got trimmed a lot in the migration, for instance 10 years of data chopped down to 3, to name a few. But now I find that I need certain data from the old server until after tax season.
How can I run a UNION query in DBeaver that pulls data from two different connections..? What's the proper syntax of the table identifiers in the FROM and JOIN keywords..?
I use DBeaver for my regular SQL work, and I cannot determine how to span a UNION query across two different connections. However, I also use Microsoft Access, and I easily did it there with two Pass-Through queries that are fed to a native Microsoft Access union query.
But how to do it in DBeaver..? I can't understand how to use two connections at the same time.
For instance, here are my connections:
And I need something like this...
SELECT *
FROM ASP7.F_CERTOB.LDHIST
UNION
SELECT *
FROM OLD.VIPDTAB.LDHIST
...but I get the following error, to which I say "No kidding! That's what I want!", lol... =-)
SQL Error [56023]: [SQL0512] Statement references objects in multiple databases.
How can this be done..?
This is not a feature of DBeaver. DBeaver can only access the data that the DB gives it, and this is restricted to a single connection at a time (save for import/export operations). This feature is being considered for development, so keep an eye out for this answer to be outdated sometime in 2019.
You can export data from your OLD database and import it into ASP7 using DBeaver (although vendor tools for this are typically more efficient for this). Then you can do your union as suggested.
Many RDBMS offer a way to logically access foreign databases as if they were local, in which case DBeaver would then be able to access the data from the OLD database (as far as DBeaver is concerned in this situation, all the data is coming from a single connection). In Postgres, for example, one can use a foreign data wrapper to access foreign data.
I'm not familiar with DB2, but a quick Google search suggests that you can set up foreign connections within DB2 using nicknames or three-part-names.
If you check this github issue:
https://github.com/dbeaver/dbeaver/issues/3605
The way to solve this is to create a task and execute it in different connections:
https://github.com/dbeaver/dbeaver/issues/3605#issuecomment-590405154
I have a database in PostgreSQL with millions of records and I have to develop a website that will use this database using Entity Framework (using dotnetConnect for PostgreSQL driver in case of PostgreSQL database).
Since SQL Server and .Net are both native to the Windows platform, should I migrate the database from PostgreSQL to SQL Server 2008 R2 for performance reasons?
I have read some blogs comparing the two RDBMS' but I am still confused about which system I should use.
There is no clear answer here, as its subjective, however this is what I would consider:
The overhead of learning a new DBMS and its tools.
The SQL dialects each RDBMS uses and if you are using that dialect currently.
The cost (monetary and time) required to migrate from PostgreSQL to another RDBMS
Do you or your client have an ongoing budget for the new RDBMS? If not, don't make the mistake of developing an application to use a RDBMS that will never see the light of day.
Personally if your current database is working well I wouldn't change. Why fix what isn't broke?
You need to find out if there is actually a problem, and if moving to SQL Server will fix it before doing any application changes.
Start by ignoring the fact you've got .net and using entity framework. Look at the queries that your web application is going to make, and try them directly against the database. See if its returning the information quick enough.
Only if, after you've tuned indexes etc. you can't make the answers come back in a time you're happy with should you decide the database is a problem. At that point it makes sense to try the same tests against a SQL Server database, but don't just assume SQL Server is going to be faster. You might find out that neither can do what you need, and you need to use faster disks or more memory etc.
The mechanism you're using to talk to a database (DotConnect or Microsoft drivers) will likely be a very minor performance consideration, considering the amount of information flowing (SQL statements in one direction and result sets in the other) is going to be almost identical for both technologies.
I have a database which is part of a closed system and the end-user of the system would like me to write some reports using the data contains in a Sybase SQL Anywhere Database. The system doesn't provide the reports that they are looking for, but access to the data is available by connecting to this ASA database.
The vendor of the software would likely prefer I not update the database and I am basically read-only as I am just doing some reporting. All is good, seal is not broken, warranty still intact, etc,etc..
My main problem is that I am using jConnect in order to read from the database, and jConnect requires some "jConnect Routines" to be installed into the database. I've found that I can make this happen by just doing an "Alter Database Upgrade JConnect On", but I just don't fully understand what this does and if there is any risks associated with it.
So, my question is does anyone know exactly what jConnect routines are and how are they used? Is there any risk adding these to a database? Should I be worried about this?
If the vendor wants you to write reports using jConnect they will have to allow the installation of the JConnect tables.
These are quite safe, where I work the DBA team install these as a matter of course and we run huge databases in production with no impact.
There is an alternative driver that you could use called jTDS. Its open source and supports MS SQL Server and Sybase. I'm not sure if they require the JConnect tables or not.
I think that the additional tables are a bit of anachronism in this day and age.
Looking at ASA 10 docs, there is another driver: the iAnywhere JDBC driver which seems to be going through the ODBC driver, and as such, probably will not require an alteration of the database.
On the other hand, installing the "jConnect system objects" is done by running the script scrits/jcatalog.sql... You can show it the DBAs, if you want to reassure them. It creates some procedures, tables, variables.
The need for this script probably comes from the fact that jConnect talks to both ASE (Sybase) and iAnywhere databases, so it needs a compatibility layer installed in the database...