rdbms

How can I monitor an SQL Server database for changes to a table without using triggers or modifying the structure of the database in any way? My preferred programming environment is .NET and C#. I'd like to be able to support any SQL Server 2000 SP4 or newer. My application is a bolt-on data visualization for another company's product. Our customer base is in the thousands, so I don't want to have to put in requirements that we modify the third-party vendor's table at every installation. By "changes to a table" I mean changes to table data, not changes to table structure. Ultimately, I would

I was reading about noSQL and relational DBMSs. After going through many posts, I am not able to find out exactly how noSQL systems perform horizontal scaling and how it is more efficient than RDBMS scaling. After all, RDBMSs also do replication and sharding. How this is fast in case of NoSql? First of all, there is no technology or product called "NoSQL." NoSQL is a broad category describing dozens of different technologies , which each work differently. Please don't use the term "NoSQL" as if it's a single implementation. Most NoSQL products achieve some scalability improvements by

When designing a schema for a DB (e.g. MySQL) the question arises whether or not to completely normalize the tables. On one hand joins (and foreign key constraints, etc.) are very slow, and on the other hand you get redundant data and the potential for inconsistency. Is "optimize last" the correct approach here? i.e. create a by-the-book normalized DB and then see what can be denormalized to achieve the optimal speed gain. My fear, regarding this approach, is that I will settle on a DB design that might not be fast enough - but at that stage refactoring the schema (while supporting existing

Possible Duplicate: Hibernate unidirectional one to many association - why is a join table better? In the Hibernate online documentation, under section 7.2.3 One-to-many, it's mentioned, that: unidirectional one-to-many association on a foreign key is an unusual case, and is not recommended. You should instead use a join table for this kind of association. I would like to know why? The only thing that comes to my mind is, it can create problems during cascade deletes. For example, Person refers to address on a one to many relationship on a foreign key, and the address would refuse to be

I'm wondering if this is a good design. I have a number of tables that require address information (e.g. street, post code/zip, country, fax, email). Sometimes the same address will be repeated multiple times. For example, an address may be stored against a supplier, and then on each purchase order sent to them. The supplier may then change their address and any subsequent purchase orders should have the new address. It's more complicated than this, but that's an example requirement. Option 1 Put all the address columns as attributes on the various tables. Copy the details down from the

After reading some answers on different websites I am confused now. So, it would be helpful to mention the key difference between DBMS and RDBMS and any relation between them. haccks Since this question become popular on Stack Overflow, I am posting an answer which answers this question for me. I found this answer on udemy website . Hope this will help future users and newbies searching for a good answer on this topic. Key Difference between DBMS and RDBMS : The key difference is that RDBMS (relational database management system) applications store data in a tabular form, while DBMS

What is a clear definition of database constraint? Why are constraints important for a database? What are the types of constraints? Ziga Kranjec Constraints are part of a database schema definition. A constraint is usually associated with a table and is created with a CREATE CONSTRAINT or CREATE ASSERTION SQL statement. They define certain properties that data in a database must comply with. They can apply to a column, a whole table, more than one table or an entire schema. A reliable database system ensures that constraints hold at all times (except possibly inside a transaction, for so

I'm in the process of generalizing a Django DB replication app and it uses the statement: SELECT %s FROM %s LIMIT 1 to fetch 1 row and use the Python DBAPI to describe the fields, it works fine with ORACLE and MySQL but, how cross platform is the LIMIT statement? BoltBait http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_(SQL)#Limiting_result_rows lists all of the major variants of the select command. I believe the best way to do this is to use the SET ROWCOUNT command before your SELECT statement. So, for you: SET ROWCOUNT 1 SELECT %s FROM %s LIMIT has become quite popular with a variety of Open Source

I want to using solr for search on articles I have 3 table: Group (id , group name) ArticleBase (id, groupId, some other field) Article(id, articleBaseId, title, date, ...) in solr schema.xml file i just define all article field that mixed with ArticleBase table (for use one index on solr) like this: (id, articleBaseId, groupId, ...) problem : Admin want to change group (ArticleBase), therefore i must update (or replace) all indexed article in solr. right ? can i update groupId only in solr index ? have any solution ? Note :Article table contains more than 200 million article, and i using solr