My company is at the point of having to make a decision regarding the design of our content databases architecture for Nintex Workflows and Forms, and we are analyzing the 1 to 1 content database for creating one Nintex database dedicated to each one of our content DBs in SharePoint.
As we have over 25 SharePoint content databases we are also considering having fewer Nintex content DBs and assign a few (3 to 5 perhaps) SP content DBs to a single Nintex content DB.
Our big question for the second scenario is, what would happened if one of the site collections starts to significantly increment the amount and size of its Workflows? Once all the mapping is done, what would be our options for solving this?
If this scenario happens, can we re-map two or more Nintex DBs to one SharePoint content DB?
I’ve been looking at the InstallGuide and DatabaseDesing documentation but I can’t find anything that completely solve this for us.
How would this scenario workout so that we can take the best decision on how to design the architecture of our Nintex content DBs?
there isn't a single answer to this. In general creating additional Nintex databases is useful if there are enough workflows running in a specific sites content database. Mostly a 1:1 scenario for Nintex databases and SharePoint databases might be the perfect fit while in other installations you might want a shared Nintex database for all those quiet sites but have 2 or 3 databases for a content database holding tons of workflows.
Do my advice is to analyze where your workflows are executing, provide dedicated content databases to your heavy sites and have shared databases for your smaller sites. If there really is increasing workflow activity in one site you still can add/map more databases to it.
Agreed. A solid strategy (again, depending on the size of the farm, # of WF's, etc.) may be to simply create a Nintex database for each functional unit in the business (e.g. HR, IT, Sales, etc.), as there may be multiple SC's for each, and map them that way. This way you have a logical grouping that may not necessarily be a 1:1 mapping based on SC's.