Comparing 1 Database with Many Tables to Multiple Databases with Fewer Tables in Each

First of all, what type of security model do you plan to implement? Role-based Access Control (RBAC) or Discretionary Access Control (DAC)?

RBAC in the Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) model, access to resources is based on the role assigned to a user. In this model, an administrator assigns a user to a role that has certain predetermined right and privileges. Because of the user's association with the role, the user can access certain resources and perform specific tasks. RBAC is also known as Non-Discretionary Access Control. The roles assigned to users are centrally administered.

DAC In the Discretionary Access Control (DAC) model, access to resources is based on user's identity. A user is granted permissions to a resource by being placed on an access control list (ACL) associated with resource. An entry on a resource's ACL is known as an Access Control Entry (ACE). When a user (or group) is the owner of an object in the DAC model, the user can grant permission to other users and groups. The DAC model is based on resource ownership.

see source

1) In RBAC: you need ElementType table to assign rights to role (users are assigned to role(s)). RBAC defines: "What can this role/user do". Administrator assigns rights for roles and permissions to roles, assigns users to role(s) to access resources. 2) In DAC: users and roles have rights to elements via access control list (ownership). DAC defines: "who has access to my data". User (owner) grants permissions to owned resource.

Any way I suggest this data model:

CREATE TABLE ElementType
(
    Id (PK)
    Name
    ...
)

CREATE TABLE ElementBase
(
    Id (PK)
    Type (FK to ElementType)
    ...
)

(one to one relationship)

CREATE TABLE Element_A
(
    Id (PK, FK to ElementBase)
    ...
)

CREATE TABLE Element_B
(
    Id (PK, FK to ElementBase)
    ...
)

1) RBAC (many-to many relationship)

CREATE TABLE ElementType_To_Role_Rights
(
    RightId (PK)
    RoleId  (FK to Role)
    ElementTypeId (FK to ElementType)
    ...
)

2) DAC (many-to many relationship)

CREATE TABLE ElementBase_To_Actor_Rights
(
    RightId (PK)
    ElementBaseId (FK to ElementBase)
    ActorId (FK to Actor)
    ...
)

CREATE TABLE Actor
(
    Id (PK)
    Name
)

CREATE TABLE User
(
    Id (PK, FK to Actor)
    Password
    ...
)

CREATE TABLE Role
(
    Id (PK, FK to Actor)
    ...
)

Some issues to bring up:

• For OLTP, inserts will be really slow in a table that wide

• You will be wasting a lot of space by repeating redundant information

• Columnstore is a non-modifiable index type so you can't use it in an OLTP environment

• You greatly complicate referential integrity controls this way. You can't just make foreign keys to make sure you are getting valid values for fields.

• Indexing will be a nightmare

The real issue here is the developers not understanding design.

Keeping the client data in it's native format is FINE. I do this kind of thing for a living, and I get tables with 500+ fields all the time. The way to handle it is to separate your RAW data from your BUILT data.

If the client gives you a massively wide table, you need to normalize it yourself to make a usable data set. There's nothing stopping you from creating a process that breaks out that data into appropriate tables.