Hi Anjo,
On 04/04/2011, at 14:25, Anjo Krank wrote:
> Depending on the actual data, the memory consumption won't be any different
> in comparison to a solution based on a shared DB.
>
I haven't explored beyond that simple experiment. So, I can't confirm.
What I have learned with this experim
Depending on the actual data, the memory consumption won't be any different in
comparison to a solution based on a shared DB.
Only the reference tables could be re-used, all the other data belongs to the
tenant anyway. Add to that the larger size of the individual records (you'd
need the tenan
Hi Michael,
I have created a prototype with the intent to evaluate this kind of solution.
You can download the source code from GitHub [1]. It uses a very simple model
and it is not feature complete, but you can easily verify the memory
consumption problem.
You can create tenants after running
Sorry, I thought I replied all. Thanks. I'll start here. With overhead I
just mean that the setup for a new EOF stack must not be very fast and my guess
is that it's going to use a fairly large amount of memory.
-Mike
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Anjo Krank wrote:
> Please keep this on-list
Please keep this on-list.
I haven't actually tried it and don't know what you mean by "overhead", but the
core idea would be sth like:
public Session() {
EOModelGroup modelGroup = new EOModelGroup();
EOModel model = modelGroup.addModelWithPath("/some/where"); // model should
be in a subfo
That's bad for me, I need to be able to bring new DB's on dynamically. It
wouldn't be possible to rev. eng. each one as needed.
This is quite a road block for me. *sigh*
-Mike
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Simon wrote:
> i think it's a big no :-(
>
> but you can definitely have multiple model
Actually, it's a yes.
You can create one EOF stack per user and clone the model group so it's used in
that stack. Then adjust the model dict for the connection and you're good to
go. You need to take really good care you never use EOModelGroup.defaultGroup()
anywhere, though.
Cheers, Anjo
Am
Le 2011-04-04 à 11:04, Simon a écrit :
> i think it's a big no :-(
>
> but you can definitely have multiple models - one for each db - and
> relationships between the models.
+1. And it should make using migrations (especially Migration0) more easier to
deal with.
> simon
>
> On 4 April 2011
Yeah, that's the way to go.
Reverse engineer each database into it's own EOModel, then build the
relationships between the models.
Be mindful that EO's can NOT have the same names across your models. So you
may have to put prefixes on the EO's after you reverse engineer the DB tables.
Paul
On
i think it's a big no :-(
but you can definitely have multiple models - one for each db - and
relationships between the models.
simon
On 4 April 2011 16:00, Michael Gargano wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a way to have a model connect to different databases
> simultaneously? So, I have a
Hi all,
Is there a way to have a model connect to different databases
simultaneously? So, I have a schema that is rev. eng'ed but that same schema
is on 10 different databases, I want to fetch data from different DB's for
different users of the system simultaneously. Is this possible?
11 matches
Mail list logo
