Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 10/02/01 11:44

javelin (google.1.jvmail@spamgourmet.com) writes:
> As for the 160 nearly identical databases, that is for 160 different
> clients, each on having about 400 identical tables, some having
> specialized tables, functions, views, etc., for their company. Thus, we
> need to manage each one independently. To put them all in a single
> database would complicate things in ways this environment is not
> prepared to handle.

Indeed, putting 160 clients in one database is likely to be bad idea
of security reasons.

To maintain and support these databases, reqiures well developed roll-out
routines and strict configuration management. Version control is an absolute
must. It's probably a good idea to add some tables to the databases that
keeps track of what is installed.

You had a question somewhere, but I will have to admit that I did not
understand what the problem really was.


--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

[Back to original message]