I was actually leaning towards schema's as a method to partition the data out when I was beginning to plan AMS 2, your suggestions of schema's confirmed this as a good approach for what we were looking for so I started to code the initial layout for the Schema in April/May, but at the time I did not have the full picture in my head on dealing with some sections of the database....
To address Josh's comments though.
Monolithic tables have their uses, I don't and wont contest that, however we've been using a monolithic structure in our current AMS distribution and in a lot of areas it has been quite a pain to try and bring some uniformity into the structure. First off, I have an ever changing platform and one of the issues I had was that development under the monolithic structure because problematic and very difficult to merge new elements in, granted the SQL schema was not all that great and a number of areas could have used improvement, but over all it was more trouble then it was worth.
By breaking out our client content into a schema structure, I've simplified the management of my data immensely, I can easily delete old/unused data with out having to worry about updating scripts that have been written to clean out structures. I can give clients greater control over their own data with out worrying about some "security" issue that I might have missed in my programming, so there's and added level of safety in an already tight structure. I've "objectified" out the content into an easily changeable/"update friendly" system of tables, views and functions. I've reduced a fair amount of overhead by limiting the order of tables, For instance, with our original monolithic dataset, we have approx 90+ tables handling all of the content that we use on a regular basis. With this new structure I've reduced that down to a total of 30 tables, 8 of which are repeated across the schemas. The method we are using the schemas in also allows me to work in some assumptions that were tricky to code under the monolithic structure, with the schema system, simplicity of the table set allowed allowed me to simulate those assumptions with out having to re-write code each time I have an update, thus giving me a highly dynamic dataset. That and I'm more confident working on a 3D level, versus 2D, the schema levels introduce the third dimension into my structure and simplify visualizing how I want things to work.
Within that third dimensional structure, it made sense to be able to code out an SQL statement that would have searched the schema set for matching patterns to that given in the SQL query, similar to the way one can search for a pattern on data in a column. But Tom has given me an idea that will allow me to work out how to search multiple schemas within a dynamic plpgsql function that figures out all my patterned schemas and executes the resulting query as he suggested, I just need to learn plpgsql programming so that I can work out all of the details (Tom, I might bug you about that once in a while).
At 09:45 PM 11/5/03 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Actually, the use of schema's was my idea, to speed up some dreadfully slow queries dealing with traffic stats from a table that was growing painfully monolithic ... the idea is/was that it would be easier to backup/remove all data pertaining to a specific client if they decided to close their account ...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Chris, > > > I work with Marc Fournier, for those who don't know, and have been > > working extensively with the schemas feature for Hub.Org's new Account > > Management package. Each client's data is stored in a seperate schema > > set asside just for them (though they will never have direct access to > > it, it helps us "balance" out the data. Each schema has the same set of > > tables, with which different data is stored, depending on the client. > > While this is an interesting use of Schema, it is not, IMHO, a good way to > partition client data. Far better to have monolithic tables with a > "client_id" column and then construct *views* which are available in each > schema only to that client. Otherwise, as you've discovered, top-level > management becomes a royal pain. > > I'd be happy to discuss this further on PGSQL-SQL, which is really the > appropriate mailing list. > > -- > -Josh Berkus > Aglio Database Solutions > San Francisco > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend >
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
