I would like to disable my rails application's oracle database partitioning, but :
I don't know how to tell whether my app is using database partitioning
I don't know how to find the place my app use partitioning, since I didn't write most of the application's code myself
Can I just system search the code base for the keyword 'Partition' and look for any result that has the key word partition in raw SQL statement?
How should I go about this?
Thanks!
Update:
I have 2 answers below and they seem to understand my question differently
I am confused now as well. I want to disable the partition feature of my Oracle Database (https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/options/partitioning/overview/index.html), does that means I cannot use the 'partition by' keyword (Oracle "Partition By" Keyword) anymore?
Partitioning is done at the schema level declaratively. Usually, one would not expect the application code to directly need anything specific to use partitioning since it is done at the data definition level. You can connect to the schema owner account and check the data dictionary views USER_PART_TABLES for partitioned tables owned by the user and USER_PART_INDEXES for the indexes.
Related
I'm working on a web site that needs to be re-written in Rails. The website was before in Drupal, and there are almost 100,000 records in the database. Now, in Drupal there are tables that do not make any place in Rails in my opinion. For example,
Table name: node_type
It stores information regarding modules in Drupal.
Table name: node
It stores information for node(s) in Drupal.
Table name: semaphore # I've no idea what it is!
Table name: rdf_mapping # No idea
I've not been working with Drupal, so all I want to ask: Is it possible to have a schema for Rails, in which the existing 100,000 records can be imported from Drupal? If so, how? If not so, what are the other options that I'm left with? Or I have to design an entirely new database schema?
Drupal's database schema is not extensively documented for a reason... it's considered implementation details, is not a public API and should not be accessed directly, especially by outside application.
It is also very hard to document because for a given site, any enabled module can add its own tables and alter existing ones (usually adding columns). Plus you have module like Fields (part of Drupal core) that create tables dynamically depending on defined content types.
For a RoR developer, the Drupal schema will probably look weird and be uncomfortable to work with. I would follow suggestion from others, create a new schema for your new application and create a migration script to get the data from the old Drupal database to your new database. I don't knwon about RoR, but try to find a good data migration that allows replay, updates and rollback, etc. You will probably have to migrate the data multiple times to fixes bugs in the process.
Well, I don't have straight forward answers, but I have some ideas what I would do simply to not make so much changes in the database, or as per the comment you can write down an sql script to migrate the data according to the rails schema like types for each tables. Now, I am just intended here to share my thoughts, but I believe there might be more explicit solutions and this is do-able in many ways, may be you need some customizations(?) overriding the default conventions. According to my thoughts, you can try the following things.
Generated Related model skipping migrations
Define tables explicitly to each models like the following snippets:
class Semaphore < ActiveRecord::Base
self.table_name = "semaphore"
end
You have to define foreign keys and primary keys explicitly for both record id and associations.
You have generate time stamp or you can explicitly avoid that like the following ways
ActiveRecord::Base.record_timestamps = false
These are basic things I can see is important.
I want to create an website where users can create their own teaching resources, e.g. blocks of text with embedded images etc.
How should I store this in a database in rails? I've heard mongoDB is good for storing documents but I was planning on using postgresql for the user database etc. and have read that generally you shouldn't mix different types of db
I'm sure this is an obvious question but I couldn't find an answer anywhere...
Thanks,
Graham
There are several things you could do.
1. Use PostgreSQL for both the Users table and the TeachingResources table. You could simply use a content column of type text to save all the data.
2. Use PostgreSQL but use the HStore functionality to basically store a hash of objects of your choosing, this gives you more flexibility. Rails 4 will support this by default, but there is also a gem you can use.
3. Use a combination of PostgreSQL and MongoDB (or any other NoSQL solution) in your app. I don't see this as a bad solution, but it does put you outside of the "new user constraints" in Rails, so this might not be the best route to start with
4. Go NoSQL all the way. There is no reason you shouldn't be able to use MongoDB for your User model. However, you are right that this type of datastorage can not give full ACID guarantees, so be careful with product planning and know it's vulnerabilities (but also its strengths).
I am implementing a Rails application that needs to aggregate search results from N independent heterogeneous databases. An example use case would be:
User queries "xpto"
The query is submitted to all the databases registered on the system
The results are transformed and combined in a predefined format
User gets the results
The application needs to provide an extensibility point for the introduction of new databases in the system. A database here can be of different kinds - a flat file, SQL database, REST interface to an SQL database, etc.
If I was working in C#/Java, ignoring speed issues, I would define a plug-in management system where each host would have a plug-in that would know how to query and transform the results of the host. New hosts would be easily introduced by defining a new plug-in and configuring the host in the system.
I am new comer to rails and I am looking for either ideas, tools or design patterns that can help me to solve this problem.
My best guess wolud be to write a custom ActiveRecord Adapter that would query all your databases and combine the results.
From the API reference:
Connections are usually created through ActiveRecord::Base.establish_connection and retrieved by ActiveRecord::Base.connection. All classes inheriting from ActiveRecord::Base will use this connection. But you can also set a class-specific connection. For example, if Course is an ActiveRecord::Base, but resides in a different database, you can just say Course.establish_connection and Course and all of its subclasses will use this connection instead.
I have a 'legacy' DB2 database that has many other applications and users. Trying to experiment with a rails app. Got everything working great with the ibm_db driver.
Problem is that I have some tables like schema1.products, schema1.sales and other tables like schema2.employees and schema2.payroll.
In the ibm_db adapter connection, I specify a schema, like schema1 or schema2, and I can work within that one schema, but I need to be able to easily (and transparently) reference both schemas basically interchangeably. I don't want to break the other apps, and the SQL I would normally write against DB2 doesn't have any of these restrictions (schemas can be mixed in SQL against DB2 without any trouble at all).
I would like to just specify table names as "schema1.products" for example and be done with it, but that doesn't seem to jive with the "rails way" of going about it.
Suggestions?
Schemas in DB2 are a very handy way to provide separate namespace to different applications. For example, you can separate all database objects for an application called "recruiting" from say application called "payroll". You can have objects (tables, views, procedures etc.) with the same name reside in multiple schemas and not colide with one another. Having your application set a schema is a handy way for it to say "hey, I am a payroll and I only want to work with my objects". So, what happens when you want to work with objects owned by another application? Well, in traditional procedural programming languages your application code would explicitly specify the schema when referencing an object in another schema or you would just do a SET CURRENT SCHEMA to switch to another schema. The problem with ORMs like ActiveRecord in Ruby on Rails is that you are not supposed to use SQL i.e. you don't have a good "Rails way" to specify schema when referencing an object. You can use find_by_sql and qualify your objects in the SQL statement but this is not what RoR people will consider to be good Rails.
You can fix things on the DB2 side. You can define a view per table in the "foreign" schema but you will have to take care to name the view so that it does not colide with what you already have in your primary schema. And, when you do that, you will undoubtedly create names that are not true Rails names.
Rails people are very proud of the "Rails way". It makes it very easy to create new applications. Rails is really awesome in this space. However, when it comes to integration with what is already out there Rails ... how do we say it ... sucks. I suggest you will have to accept to do things that are not the best examples of the Rails Way if you want to work with existing database structures.
How do i work with two different databases in rails with active records?
Let's say your app enables users to create their own tables in the database to hold their own, custom data. Each table would have it's own schema. What are some good approaches?
My first stab involved dynamically creating migration files and model files bu I'd like to run this on heroku where you can't write to the filesystem.
I'm thinking eval may be the way to go to create and run the migration class and the model class. But I want to make sure the model class exists when a new process of the app is spawned. Can probably do this by storing these class definition with each user as they create new tables and then run through them all at startup. But now it's convulted enough that I may be missing something obvious.
It's probably a better idea not to generate new classes on runtime. Besides all of the security risks, each thread's startup time will be abominable if you ever get a significant number of users.
I would suggest rethinking your app design and aim at generic tables to hold the user's custom data. If you have examples of data structures that users can create we might be able to help.
Have you thought about a non-sql database for those tables? Look at CouchDB - there are several plugins on Github that integrate it with rails. Records in the database are JSON documents, with arbitrary key-value structure. May be perfect for a user-defined schema.
There is (was?) a cool Wiki project, called Informl. It was a Wiki, not just for web pages but for web applications. (Get it? It's informal because it's a Wiki, it's got forms because it is an application, and it's user-generated, thus Web 2.0, which means that according to an official UN resolution it is legally required to have a name which is missing a vwl.)
So, in other words, it was not just about user-generated content, but also user-generated structured data.
They did this by generating PostgreSQL-specific SQL at runtime to create new tables and then have ActiveRecord reload the schemas.
The code is up on RubyForge. It's based on Rails 1.2.3. I guess you could do much better than that today, especially with the upcoming extensibility interfaces in Rails 3.