I currently developed an app that connects to SQL Server 2005 database, so my DAL objects where generated using information from that DB.
It will also be possible to connect to an Oracle and MySQL db, all with the same table structures (aside from the normal differences in fields, such as varbinary(max) in SQL Server and BLOB in Oracle, and so on). For this purpose, I already defined multiple connection strings and multiple SubSonic providers for the different DB's the app will run on.
My question is, if I generated my objects using a SQL Server database, should the generated objects work transparently with the other DB's or do I need to generate a different DAL for each database engine I use? Should I be aware of any possible bugs I may encounter while performing these operations?
Thanks in advance for any advice on this issue.
I'm using SubSonic 2.2 by the way....
From what I've been able to test so far, I can't see an easy way to achieve what I'm trying to do.
The ideal situation for me would have been to generate SubSonic objects using SQL Server for example, and just be able to switch dynamically to MySQL by just creating at runtime the correct Provider for it along with its connection string. I got to a point where my app would correctly connect from SQL Server to a MySQL DB, but there's a point where the app fails since SubSonic internally generates queries of the form
SELECT * FROM dbo.MyTable
which MySQL doesn't support obviously. I also noticed queries that enclosed table names with brackets ([]), so it seems that there are a number of factors that would limit the use of one Provider along multiple DB engines.
I guess my only other option is to sort it out with multiple generated providers, although I must admit it does not make me comfortable knowing that I'll have N copies of basically the same classes along my project.
I would really love to hear from anyone else if they've had similar experiences. I'll be sure to post my results once I get everything sorted out and working for my project.
Has any of this changed in 3.0? This would definitely be a worthy reason for me to upgrade if life is any easier on this matter...
Related
I'm migrating from SQL Server to Azure SQL and I'd like to ask you who have more experience in Azure(I have basically none) some questions just to understand what I need to do to have the best migration.
Today I do a lot of cross database queries in some of my tasks that runs once a week. I execute SPs, run selects, inserts and updates cross the dbs. I solved the executions of SPs by using external data sources and sp_execute_remote. But as far as I can see it's only possible to select from an external database, meaning I won't be able to do any inserts or updates cross the dbs. Is that correct? If so, what's the best way to solve this problem?
I also read about cross db calls are slow. Does this mean it's slower that in SQL Server? I want to know if I'll face a slower process comparing to what I have today.
What I really need is some good guidelines on how to do the best migration without spending loads of time with trial and error. I appreciate any help in this matter.
Cross database transactions are not supported in Azure SQL DB. You connect to a specific database, and can't use 3 part names or use the USE syntax.
You could open up two different connections from your program, one to each database. It doesn't allow any kind of transactional consistency, but would allow you to retrieve data from one Azure SQL DB and insert it in another.
So, at least now, if you want your database in Azure and you can't avoid cross-database transactions, you'll be using an Azure VM to host SQL Server.
Here is my situation. I have an extensive REST based API that connects to a MongoDB database using Mongoose. The API is written as a standard "MEAN" stack application.
Currently, when a developer queries the API they're always connecting to the live production database. What I want to do is have an exact duplicate database as a "staging" database, where new data will be added first, vetted over a period of time, and then move to the live database. Then I want developers to be able to query either one simply by modifying their query.
I started looking into this with the Mongoose documentation, and it appears as though the models are tied to the DB connection, and if I want to have multiple connections I also have to have multiple models, one for each connection. This would be a nightmare of WET code and not the path I want to take.
What I want to do is not touch any of my code at all and simply have a switch that changes to the proper database for a given query. So my question is, how can I achieve this? Is it possible? The documentation seems to imply it is not.
Rather than trying to maintain connections two environments in the same code base have you considered setting up stage version of your application? Which database it connects to could be set through an environment variable or some other configuration option.
The developers would still then only have to make a change to query one or the other and you could migrate data from the stage database to production/live database once you have finished your vetting process.
I'm attempting to make my existing SQL Server 2008 database compatible with the Windows Azure platform by using SSDT, however I am getting a whole bunch of errors when I build the project due to TVFs and views looking for an external database that sits in the same instance in SSMS.
I've added the database that its looking for into Azure, which wasn't a problem.
I've found that if I load the offending piece of code I can add the Azure server address to the FROM statement which resolves the error (shown below), however I have a huge number that rely on the external db and hoped there may be a quicker way?
FROM [myAzureserver.database.windows.net.ExternalDBName.dbo.TableName] as ALIAS
I understand that this issue would not exist if I merged the databases, however this isn't possible at present.
Thanks a lot for your help.
Why are you trying to make your local SQL Server Azure compliant? Are you planning to move it at some point in the cloud? If so, you won't be able to use linked servers. Your FROM clause will work as long as the database remains on an on-premise SQL Server instance.
Assuming that's what you want to do, you are asking if there is quicker way to change your references to point to the cloud database, right? I am not sure if this will work for you but I had a similar issue on another project and ended up using synonyms. Check our synonyms here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177544.aspx. Although you can't create a synonym for a server, you can create synonyms for tables/views/procs.
Again, this may not work for you, but let's try this...
Assuming you have your primary database called DB1, the secondary database called DB2, and the cloud database of DB2 called AzureDB2, you could create synonyms in DB2 to point to the cloud database without changing any SQL statement from DB1.
So assume you have this statement today in DB1:
SELECT * FROM DB2.MyTable
You could create a synonym in DB2 called MyTable:
CREATE SYNONYM MyTable FOR [myAzureserver.database.windows.net.ExternalDBName.dbo.TableName]
DB2 becomes a bridge basically. You don't need to change any statement in DB1; just create synonyms in DB2 that point to the cloud database.
Hopefully this works for you. :)
We have several legacy SQL Server databases that we occasionally make schema changes to. We currently have a utility written in C++ that allows users to update their DB's with these schema changes. The utility currently generates dynamic sql to create all DB objects. I am looking into redoing this and thought EF migrations might be a good way to go. I have read up a bit on the subject and I have a general idea of how it works. But I'm having a bit of a hard time figuring out how I would set it up to replace our current procedure (or if it is even possible). Currently, a client could be on any one of a number of previous versions. I'm assuming I would have to go back to the oldest possible version and create my model/initial migration from that, then generate incremental migrations for each version change in order to support updates from all versions. Is that a correct assumption? Also, currently our clients could be using sql server 2000, 2005, or 2008. Would this have any effect on how I would set things up (or if I even could)? Further, the goal is to create a utility with a (C# - probably WPF) UI that the user can use to manipulate the migrations (up or down, preferably). I've seen a lot of examples of how to manipulate migrations from command-line within package manager but not a lot of stuff on how to create a utility with a friendly UI for upgrading/downgrading DB's in production. Also, I have not seen anything that shows how to create stored procedures in a migration (our DBs rely on some stored procedures). I'm assuming that, if nothing else, I can use the Sql() method to generate a SQL query to create a SP. Is that correct? Is there a better way?
I know my questions are a bit non-specific and I apologize for that. But I'm still in the beginning processes of learning this and I'd like to get an idea of whether or not this is a good way to go. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Dennis
Firstly, on SQL Server support, Entity Framework doesn't really support SQL Server 2000. See this question:
EntityFramework SQL Server 2000?
On the question of supporting all the multiple versions, you have the right idea about needing to generate an initial migration for the oldest version first then incrementally altering the model and generating migrations to support the later versions. This will be a pain as the migrations are opinionated about how they represent the model in the database and you will be doing a lot of messing about to end up with a model and a set of migrations that fully represent that. Specific concerns are indexes, column lengths, data types, stored procedures, triggers, functions, partitioning.
The Sql() function gets you around most issues, though also helpful in the migrations are functions like CreateIndex and AlterColumn.
For automating this, the migrations are definitely available as powershell cmdlets which are themselves just .Net objects so can be called programmatically.
As this question is a year old, I assume you will have made a decision on whether to do this. My opinion is that it is hard to see that it's worth the effort. If you were re-platforming the code base that uses this database to Entity Framework then it would make sense. Otherwise there are bound to be better tools out there for database version management. My first port of call would be Redgate.
I am new to subsonic and I'd like to know about the best practices regarding the following scenario:
Subsonic supports multiple database systems, e.g. SQLServer and MySQL. Our customers need to decide while deploying our application to their servers, which database system should be used. Long story short: the providerName, normally specified within the application configuration, should be configurable after the application is finished.
How can this be done? Do I have to generate seperate data libraries for each database system I want to support?
Thank you in advance
Marco
No you do not need to genarate seperate libraries.
How ever you can not use direct sql string as you understand but you need to go always using subsonic sql create code.
Also is good to make some tests on the diferent databases, because not all code have been 100% testes on every case.