Thread: Managing two sets of data in one database
I have a database which contains two primary sets of data:
Jon
1) A large (~150GB) dataset. This data set is mainly static. It is updated, but not by the users (it is updated by our company, which provides the data to users). There are some deletions, but it is safe to consider this an "add-only" database, where only new records are created.
2) A small (~10MB but growing) dataset. This is the user's data. It includes many bookmarks (i.e. foreign keys) into data set #1. However, I am not explicitly using any referential integrity system.
Also, many queries cross the datasets together.
Now, my issue is that right now when we do updates to the dataset, we have to make them to the live database. I would prefer to manage data releases the way we manage software releases - have a staging area, test the data, and then deploy it to the users. However, I am not sure the best approach for this. If there weren't lots of crossover queries, I could just shove them in separate databases, and then swap out dataset #1 when we have a new release.
Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks,
Jon
On 03/29/12 9:43 AM, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
> 1) A large (~150GB) dataset. This data set is mainly static. It is
> updated, but not by the users (it is updated by our company, which
> provides the data to users). There are some deletions, but it is safe
> to consider this an "add-only" database, where only new records are
> created.
> 2) A small (~10MB but growing) dataset. This is the user's data. It
> includes many bookmarks (i.e. foreign keys) into data set #1.
> However, I am not explicitly using any referential integrity system.
by 'dataset' do you mean table, aka relation ?
by 'not using any referential integrity', do you mean, you're NOT using
foreign keys ('REFERENCES table(field)' in your table declaration ?
>
> Also, many queries cross the datasets together.
>
by 'cross', do you mean JOIN ?
> Now, my issue is that right now when we do updates to the dataset, we
> have to make them to the live database. I would prefer to manage data
> releases the way we manage software releases - have a staging area,
> test the data, and then deploy it to the users. However, I am not
> sure the best approach for this. If there weren't lots of crossover
> queries, I could just shove them in separate databases, and then swap
> out dataset #1 when we have a new release.
>
you can't JOIN data across relations(tables) in different databases.
--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
by 'dataset' do you mean table, aka relation ?'
It's a group of tables.
by 'not using any referential integrity', do you mean, you're NOT using foreign keys ('REFERENCES table(field)' in your table declaration ?
Correct.
by 'cross', do you mean JOIN ?Also, many queries cross the datasets together.
There are joins, subselects, and similar queries which cross the datasets.
you can't JOIN data across relations(tables) in different databases.Now, my issue is that right now when we do updates to the dataset, we have to make them to the live database. I would prefer to manage data releases the way we manage software releases - have a staging area, test the data, and then deploy it to the users. However, I am not sure the best approach for this. If there weren't lots of crossover queries, I could just shove them in separate databases, and then swap out dataset #1 when we have a new release.
Right. That's the reason I asked on the list. I didn't know if there is a good way of managing this sort of data. If I could just have two different databases, I would have done that a while ago. I didn't know if someone had a similar situation and what kind of solution they used for it. Right now, both datasets are in the same database. But that means I can't do releases of the static dataset, and instead, when the company updates the database, we have to make the updates directly on the live database. I'm trying to avoid that and do releases, and I am seeing if anyone knows of a good approach given the constraints.
Jon
Hi Jonathan,
On 29/03/12 19:01, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
Have you considered using views in the queries instead of hitting the base tables directly? You could then load the releases into a different schema (so instead of select * from mytable, you have a view which does select * from release_20110329.mytable, for example) or use different table names for each release (live_*, test_*, beta_* maybe). Switching between releases should be fast (and atomic), but everything would still be within the same database so you'd be able to get to all the data you need.
cheers,
Tom
On 29/03/12 19:01, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
you can't JOIN data across relations(tables) in different databases.Now, my issue is that right now when we do updates to the dataset, we have to make them to the live database. I would prefer to manage data releases the way we manage software releases - have a staging area, test the data, and then deploy it to the users. However, I am not sure the best approach for this. If there weren't lots of crossover queries, I could just shove them in separate databases, and then swap out dataset #1 when we have a new release.Right. That's the reason I asked on the list. I didn't know if there is a good way of managing this sort of data. If I could just have two different databases, I would have done that a while ago. I didn't know if someone had a similar situation and what kind of solution they used for it. Right now, both datasets are in the same database. But that means I can't do releases of the static dataset, and instead, when the company updates the database, we have to make the updates directly on the live database. I'm trying to avoid that and do releases, and I am seeing if anyone knows of a good approach given the constraints.
Have you considered using views in the queries instead of hitting the base tables directly? You could then load the releases into a different schema (so instead of select * from mytable, you have a view which does select * from release_20110329.mytable, for example) or use different table names for each release (live_*, test_*, beta_* maybe). Switching between releases should be fast (and atomic), but everything would still be within the same database so you'd be able to get to all the data you need.
cheers,
Tom
Tom -
Your suggestion gives me an idea, and I'd like your opinion since I haven't done much with schemas.
(1) Separate the datasets into different schemas
(2) Use different schema names for different static data releases
(3) For the *company*, we can use a schema search path that includes the next schema
(4) For the *users*, they can use a schema search path that includes the released schema
Then, I wouldn't have to modify any code, except to set the schema search path based on who was connecting.
Does this sound reasonable?
Jon
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Tom Molesworth <tom@audioboundary.com> wrote:
Hi Jonathan,Have you considered using views in the queries instead of hitting the base tables directly? You could then load the releases into a different schema (so instead of select * from mytable, you have a view which does select * from release_20110329.mytable, for example) or use different table names for each release (live_*, test_*, beta_* maybe). Switching between releases should be fast (and atomic), but everything would still be within the same database so you'd be able to get to all the data you need.
On 29/03/12 19:01, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:you can't JOIN data across relations(tables) in different databases.Now, my issue is that right now when we do updates to the dataset, we have to make them to the live database. I would prefer to manage data releases the way we manage software releases - have a staging area, test the data, and then deploy it to the users. However, I am not sure the best approach for this. If there weren't lots of crossover queries, I could just shove them in separate databases, and then swap out dataset #1 when we have a new release.Right. That's the reason I asked on the list. I didn't know if there is a good way of managing this sort of data. If I could just have two different databases, I would have done that a while ago. I didn't know if someone had a similar situation and what kind of solution they used for it. Right now, both datasets are in the same database. But that means I can't do releases of the static dataset, and instead, when the company updates the database, we have to make the updates directly on the live database. I'm trying to avoid that and do releases, and I am seeing if anyone knows of a good approach given the constraints.
cheers,
Tom
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Jonathan Bartlett <jonathan@newmedio.com> wrote: > Tom - > > Your suggestion gives me an idea, and I'd like your opinion since I haven't > done much with schemas. > > (1) Separate the datasets into different schemas > (2) Use different schema names for different static data releases > (3) For the *company*, we can use a schema search path that includes the > next schema > (4) For the *users*, they can use a schema search path that includes the > released schema > > Then, I wouldn't have to modify any code, except to set the schema search > path based on who was connecting. > > Does this sound reasonable? It's pretty much what I was going to suggest.
Jonathan Bartlett wrote on 29.03.2012 22:39: > Your suggestion gives me an idea, and I'd like your opinion since I haven't done much with schemas. > > (1) Separate the datasets into different schemas > (2) Use different schema names for different static data releases > (3) For the *company*, we can use a schema search path that includes the next schema > (4) For the *users*, they can use a schema search path that includes the released schema > > Then, I wouldn't have to modify any code, except to set the schema search path based on who was connecting. If you create different Postgres users, you can set the search_path per user, so you don't have to remember doing that whileconnecting.
On 03/29/12 2:16 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > Jonathan Bartlett wrote on 29.03.2012 22:39: >> Your suggestion gives me an idea, and I'd like your opinion since I >> haven't done much with schemas. >> >> (1) Separate the datasets into different schemas >> (2) Use different schema names for different static data releases >> (3) For the *company*, we can use a schema search path that includes >> the next schema >> (4) For the *users*, they can use a schema search path that includes >> the released schema >> >> Then, I wouldn't have to modify any code, except to set the schema >> search path based on who was connecting. > > If you create different Postgres users, you can set the search_path > per user, so you don't have to remember doing that while connecting. heck, the default search_path is $USER,"public" -- john r pierce N 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast