Re: Database Hosting
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:14:50 GMT
Message-ID: <uRD8h.22993$cz.350497_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>Murdoc wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>Our company is about to embark on rewriting our entire application to be truly client/server based, and bring the UI up to .NET. One of the additional services that
>>>our CEO wants to provide is the hosting of the software ourselves (to save our smaller
>>>clients the licensing costs of the database server software, etc). However, the proposed solution to this is to simply have a single database with every
>>>client's data in it, and add a 'client-code'/'client-id' field to EVERY single table in
>>>the database. Now, to me this seems to be a seriously flawed method of doing it, when a much simpler option (one database per client) is available.
>>>
>>>What are your thoughts, and how do other companies provide a similar service?
>>
>>Does your company ever plan to do any cross-company analyses of the data?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:14:50 GMT
Message-ID: <uRD8h.22993$cz.350497_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Murdoc wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote: >
>>Murdoc wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>Our company is about to embark on rewriting our entire application to be truly client/server based, and bring the UI up to .NET. One of the additional services that
>>>our CEO wants to provide is the hosting of the software ourselves (to save our smaller
>>>clients the licensing costs of the database server software, etc). However, the proposed solution to this is to simply have a single database with every
>>>client's data in it, and add a 'client-code'/'client-id' field to EVERY single table in
>>>the database. Now, to me this seems to be a seriously flawed method of doing it, when a much simpler option (one database per client) is available.
>>>
>>>What are your thoughts, and how do other companies provide a similar service?
>>
>>Does your company ever plan to do any cross-company analyses of the data?
> > There are no plans for this at the moment. But multiple DBs will not hinder the need > for this in the future.
Are you saying that to suggest Progress will perform transparent cross-db joins and unions? Or are you saying it will be possible to extract the data from multiple databases to combine into one in the future?
For some products, using multiple databases will affect licensing costs. I assume this is NOT the case with Progress? Received on Tue Nov 21 2006 - 15:14:50 CET