tubelight
asked on
design question. (multiple companies)
I have a database that represents a Company. (tables include inventory, employees etc...)
its MSDE and ASP.net
I want to modify it so that it should be able to handle multiple companies. Max 15 companies. One client (user of this product) can have multiple companies. There will be multiple clients.
I would move to SQL server
So i am exploring options for modifying the (database) design.
Here is what i came up with.
Option 1
--------
Add a column named CompanyID to each table and make this column a part of the primary Key.
Thus Inevntory table presently has pKey=StockID. In this option1, I would change it to pKey={StockID, CompanyID}.
This means all the joins on all the tables will get one additional join due to this additional pKey.
One database for each client.
comments welcome.
Option 2
--------
Make the primary Key composed of the CompanyID thus the pKey will be SMAC-0001 where first 4 charactes 'SMAC' represent the company. All the tables will have such a pKey. Whenever required we can seperate the first 4 chars and get to the companyID. This means all the pKeys have to be char based and can not use numbers which might have been faster. but we are reducing on extra column and one extra join so i would think its better than option1.
One database for each client.
comments welcome.
Option 3
--------
Don't change the existing db design.
Instead, create a seperate db for each company.
Then have a master db that will hold info about each company.
This might sound not so good option but if i think about it i seem to like it more. One can manage the client information (which will include client's companies info) in the master db. When the cilent connects to the db using the app, he will first query the master db which will hold pointers to the databases that he is assigned to.
It will be more efficiant since number of hits on each database will be reduced.
Drawback - too many databases. if i am using sql server or mysql how wild does this option sound.
Also it won't be easy to compare information across two or more companies. i.e. run a report that will find total inventory items in all the companies.
comments welcome.
Even if you suggest option 3 is better, please comment which one of opt1 and opt2 you find better.
Any other options ?
thx n regards
its MSDE and ASP.net
I want to modify it so that it should be able to handle multiple companies. Max 15 companies. One client (user of this product) can have multiple companies. There will be multiple clients.
I would move to SQL server
So i am exploring options for modifying the (database) design.
Here is what i came up with.
Option 1
--------
Add a column named CompanyID to each table and make this column a part of the primary Key.
Thus Inevntory table presently has pKey=StockID. In this option1, I would change it to pKey={StockID, CompanyID}.
This means all the joins on all the tables will get one additional join due to this additional pKey.
One database for each client.
comments welcome.
Option 2
--------
Make the primary Key composed of the CompanyID thus the pKey will be SMAC-0001 where first 4 charactes 'SMAC' represent the company. All the tables will have such a pKey. Whenever required we can seperate the first 4 chars and get to the companyID. This means all the pKeys have to be char based and can not use numbers which might have been faster. but we are reducing on extra column and one extra join so i would think its better than option1.
One database for each client.
comments welcome.
Option 3
--------
Don't change the existing db design.
Instead, create a seperate db for each company.
Then have a master db that will hold info about each company.
This might sound not so good option but if i think about it i seem to like it more. One can manage the client information (which will include client's companies info) in the master db. When the cilent connects to the db using the app, he will first query the master db which will hold pointers to the databases that he is assigned to.
It will be more efficiant since number of hits on each database will be reduced.
Drawback - too many databases. if i am using sql server or mysql how wild does this option sound.
Also it won't be easy to compare information across two or more companies. i.e. run a report that will find total inventory items in all the companies.
comments welcome.
Even if you suggest option 3 is better, please comment which one of opt1 and opt2 you find better.
Any other options ?
thx n regards
I like a variation on option 1 - add the company_ID (you wouldn't necessarily need it to be part of the primary key) then add views for each table. lets say you have an ORDERS table which has an ORDER_ID PK column and an ORDER_DESC column.
Add a view with
select ORDER_ID, ORDER_DESC
from ORDERS
where (COMPANY_ID in (select COMPANY_ID from USERCOMPANY where USER_ID = system_user))
as the select statement. The USERCOMPANY table would contain just user id's and company id's. This way, if you wanted someone to have access to all companies or just 2 companies, you could manage the one table for permissions. There are many different variations on this scheme. This is just one way. If you then only give the users access to views and not the tables directly, you strengthen security. Of course this means changing all your code to look at the view instead of the table, but it might be worth the initial work.
Add a view with
select ORDER_ID, ORDER_DESC
from ORDERS
where (COMPANY_ID in (select COMPANY_ID from USERCOMPANY where USER_ID = system_user))
as the select statement. The USERCOMPANY table would contain just user id's and company id's. This way, if you wanted someone to have access to all companies or just 2 companies, you could manage the one table for permissions. There are many different variations on this scheme. This is just one way. If you then only give the users access to views and not the tables directly, you strengthen security. Of course this means changing all your code to look at the view instead of the table, but it might be worth the initial work.
Just in case you need more reinforcement.....
option 1 has success written all over it.
Our current student records system works this way to allow one central office the ability to manage multiple districts. It is a trivial thing to modify your queries to work in this environment.
option 1 has success written all over it.
Our current student records system works this way to allow one central office the ability to manage multiple districts. It is a trivial thing to modify your queries to work in this environment.
ASKER
thx guys
i see opt 1 is opted. I have seen it used in past too.
adwiseman - true i dont have to have it in all the tables.
joefunsmith - true i wont make it a pkey and views is good idea.
but ... :)
i can not stop wondering what are downfalls of opt 2.
It reduces one column and one join that otherwise seeps in almost all the database tables. only prob i see is that it prevents you from using numeric pkey. perhaps that hurts.
everyone using one database is going to be more intensive on sql engine compared to same number accessing different databases. isn;t that correct ?
curious: how many dbs can a sql server have ?
dhenson - i wish someone had enorsed that 2 or 3 is better :)
i understand you all are speaking off experience. i sometimes indulge myself in questions like this.
regds
i see opt 1 is opted. I have seen it used in past too.
adwiseman - true i dont have to have it in all the tables.
joefunsmith - true i wont make it a pkey and views is good idea.
but ... :)
i can not stop wondering what are downfalls of opt 2.
It reduces one column and one join that otherwise seeps in almost all the database tables. only prob i see is that it prevents you from using numeric pkey. perhaps that hurts.
everyone using one database is going to be more intensive on sql engine compared to same number accessing different databases. isn;t that correct ?
curious: how many dbs can a sql server have ?
dhenson - i wish someone had enorsed that 2 or 3 is better :)
i understand you all are speaking off experience. i sometimes indulge myself in questions like this.
regds
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
thx joe for being patient n helpful, its yours.
While option 3 is doable, your going to spend the same amount of time developing means to make it look as if all the data was in 1 database. Also, the performance should not be that much of an issue, because it sounds as if these where all going to reside on the same server anyway.