SQL Server 2008 Schema Naming Conventions

Question

I'm creating a brand new database with no legacy constraints, so I'm curious as to what the schema best practices are.

The database will be called "SecurityData". It stores information about bonds.

The schema I have already identified are:

• import - Views and procs that are really linked server calls to other databases
• export - Views and procs meant to be used by other databases
• staging - Tables used for bulk inserts so we can verify and scrub the data.
• ??? - The real tables containing useful data
• history - Change logs for the real tables

Questions:

1. Am I going schema crazy or does this make sense?
2. Should I use dbo for my "real tables" or should I avoid that schema as it tends to become a garbage dump?

Answer 1

Schemas serve a dual purpose:

• security containers. Grants/deny/revokes on a schema apply to all objects in the schema. Separating related security objects into a shcema allows for easy maintenance and control of access.
• namespaces. Qualifying object names with schemas allows reduced conflict probability with names used by other applications and even other modules within your own application.

So my question to you is: why do you want to use schemas in the first place? I'm not saying you shouldn't, but i want to understand which advantage of the schemas are you most appealed to. If you know the answer to that, then you'll know how many schemas you need and what those schemas are. Of course, the answer can be a mixture of the two reasons I give at start, that is OK. In that case you may find that what makes sense from a namespace point of view is a disaster from security point or view or vice-versa.

I myself I used separate schemas just like you plan to, and soley for programming namespace benefits. during development it helped me to see, just from the name of an object, where to it belongs logically in the app.