Jeff Johnson wrote: > Looking for opinions here. Most of my customers have several sites. > With VFP I always put different sites in different folders so each site > has identical databases. When considering SQL Server or PostGreSQL > multiple databases seems cumbersome. The other option is to have one > database with one set of tables and have a site field. The problem with > this approach is that there is a chance that a mistake could make one > site's data available to another site. There is a lot of overhead for > printing reports and accessing data to keep thing separate. > > Can anyone conger up pros and cons for the two approaches?
We are just now facing exactly that same scenario, even down to the 2 servers (SQL and Postgre). In our case, accidental exposure of data to the wrong client would result in ruinous lawsuits, plus we'd have to change the code for all of our reports to take into account the client (or whatever) field. I've decided to go with separate databases for each client, running on the same server. Since we use Remote views for all of our data needs in the software, this simply entails changing the connection string for each client. Turned out to be really simple. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
