Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: DB Design Dilemma!! One DB or Many DBs??

Re: DB Design Dilemma!! One DB or Many DBs??

From: Ruud de Koter <ruud_dekoter_at_hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:42:42 +0100
Message-ID: <3C68C772.490521BC@hp.com>


Hi Rob,

Rob Hindman wrote:
>
> Hi I have a major DB Design Dilemma !!
>
> I am a DBA working with a group of engineers on a new software system,
> which will use DB2 version 7.2.
>
> This is a J2EE application, and we are going to be making extensive
> use of web services.
>
> Our design dilemma comes down to this:
>
> There is an arbitrary hierarchy of units (institutions) that the users
> can belong to, say:
>
> Corporate_HeadQuarters
> Division_1
> Sector_A
> Group_i
> Group_ii
> Sector_B
> Group_iii
> Group_iv
> Division_2
> Sector_C
> Group_v
> Group_vi
> Sector_D
> Group_vii
> Group_viii
>
> This hierarchy could be represented in a database table, called
> "Institution", for example.
>
> At each level of the hierarchy, we will collect records, say
> accounts_payable and accounts_recievable.
>
> Clearly, some Groups would like the option of keeping their records to
> themselves, but the application could easily handle this security.
>
> The development team is divided into three camps:
>
> "Camp A" (one database approach) - want to store the institutional
> hierarchy in a database table, store all "accounts_payable" and
> "accounts_recievable" data in single database tables, so there would
> be
> three tables, and it would be easy to figure out who owned which
> records
> by using basic SQL.
>
> "Camp B" (multiple database approach) - want to store the
> institutional hierarchy in one database, and then use separate
> databases, each with a "accounts_recievable" and an "accounts_payable"
> table. "Camp B" argues that this approach provides security at the
> database level, which it seems to. But it might also lead to
> maintenance issues when dealing with the backup and restore of
> multiple databases.
>
> "Camp C" (one database, multiple table owners) - want to use a single
> database,
> but copy the "accounts_recievable" and "accounts_payable" tables and
> give privileges only to the applicable group, I.E.,
> "group_i.accounts_recievable".
>
> In weighing these options, I have come up with the following pros and
> cons:
>
> One database approach (Camp A)
> ------------------------------
>
> Pros: * simple install,
> * allows easy roll-up accounting if needed,
> * simple tuning and maintenance
> * should scale to a large number of groups
>
> Cons: * does not provide database-level security - relies on the
> application.
>
> Multiple database approach (Camp B)
> -----------------------------------
>
> Pros: * provides database-level security, independent of the
> application,
> * separate databases reduces the complexity of the design a
> little
>
> Cons: * means creating a separate database per "group"
> * more databases mean more difficulty (steps) tuning and
> maintenance
> * only 256 databases per instance using DB2
> * many copies of the same tables, over and over again...
> * databases need to be cleaned-up if the institutions are
> shuffled, which is rare.
> * might be resource-intensive on a single-machine installation
> (a definite possibility).
>
> One Database, Multiple Table Owners (Camp C)
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Pros: * One database is slightly easier maintenance than the Multiple
> database approach.
>
> Cons: * Table-level security is almost as good as Database-level
> security - in fact they are logically identical, database-level
> security gives you a better feeling.
>
> Does anyone else see the Pros and Cons differently?
>
> I am in "Camp A" (several such designs in production) but I am moving
> towards "Camp B".
>
> I would like to hear any advice or opinions!
>

Some words from someone with an Oracle-background (so I do not know whether this applies to DB2 as well).

What strikes me is that you do not give any serious drawback to option C. The only point you make is that 'database-level security gives you a better feeling'. Now feelings can be pretty important, but in this terrain I 'd like to see them firmly grounded in reasoning. As you already state, user-based security (or table-level as you call it) is logically equivalent to database-level security. Given this fact, the simpler structure of the user-based solution should take precedence.

In an Oracle environment the user-based solution is quite likely to outperform the database-based solution as soon as links have to be made between different users/databases. This is caused by the simple fact that the optimizer works at the database-level, based on knowledge of the data in a single database. As soon as more than one database is involved, easy assumptions are made about the data, which sometimes leads to very suboptimal execution plans (or at least this used to be the case, haven't tried to suboptimize execution in ages ;-). Add this to easier management/maintenance, and my opinion should be clear!

Regards,

Ruud.  


Ruud de Koter                    HP OpenView Software Business Unit
Senior Software Engineer         IT Service Management Operation
Telephone: +31 (20) 514 15 89    Van Diemenstraat 200  
Telefax  : +31 (20) 514 15 90    PO Box 831
Telnet   : 547 - 1589            1000 AV  Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Email : ruud_dekoter_at_hp.com
internet: http://www.openview.hp.com/itsm
          http://www.openview.hp.com/assetview
intranet: http://ovweb.bbn.hp.com/itservicemanager
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tue Feb 12 2002 - 01:42:42 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US