| Steven Wilmot 2002-11-28, 2:23 pm |
| As a personal opinion, it seems unusual.(at least not with so many
databases - maybe 2 or 3, but not 20)
In most cases, it would be an advantage to have fewer databases (or
preferably just one)
- You can only have DRI within the same database
- It is easier to manage one than 20 databases.
Only thoughts that might make 20 databases better are:
- If they want to update an individual module of their application, they
can just ship you a new copy of that particular database (although any
worthwhile programmer could implement exactly the same thing in SQL Scripts)
- If the product were to support larger system, then the 20 different
DBs could run on different servers (With 5 users, this seems unlikely)
- Any bolt-ons to the application would just mean attaching another
database (with no disruption to the existing system
--------
I certainly can't see any REAL advantages in your scenario for this, though
I haven't seen the product.
(Just a few thoughts)
Steven
"Brent Krezan" <brent_krezan@city.vancouver.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:uWkJt$wlCHA.1568@tkmsftngp07...
> I have a vendor who is trying to sell me an application that will be used
by
> about five of our staff. This system requires me to create 20 different
> databases on my SQL Server instance. It also requires 20 different ODBC
> DSNs be set up for each client. This arrangement strikes me as very odd.
I
> am trying to be open minded, but I am having difficulty seeing an upside
to
> this complexity. I also wonder how many SQL client licenses this product
> will consume.
>
> I would appreciate some feedback on this architecture. Do you think there
> are legitimate reasons for 20 DBs for one product or is this unwarranted
> complexity.
>
>
>
|