From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Norbert Sándor <sandor(dot)norbert(at)erinors(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | query multiple schemas |
Date: | 2024-04-21 20:41:23 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYLpVCeOaAo6X8yCw02JAtRT+yiLZ2Gc-N_UJyJAv-V6A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sunday, April 21, 2024, Norbert Sándor <sandor(dot)norbert(at)erinors(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>
> The structure of each schema is identical, the tenant ID is the name of
> the schema.
>
You’ve hit the main reason why the scheme you choose is usually avoided.
Better to just add tenant_id to your tables in the first place. And use
partitioned tables if you desire physical separation.
> The above solution seems to work, my questions are:
>
> 1. Is there a better way to achieve the same functionality? Maybe
> without using JSON as an intermediate representation?
>
>
In-database, I doubt it (though I didn’t study your specific solution in
depth). Json provides the easiest way to generate the virtual tables you
need.
Otherwise maybe try something with say bash scripting and psql scripts; or
some other client-side setup where you separate the query and the metadata
lookups so the queries just return normal results and the client takes them
are merges them.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2024-04-21 20:53:05 | Re: error in trigger creation |
Previous Message | Steve Baldwin | 2024-04-21 20:35:41 | Re: query multiple schemas |