3 ms·

That's not true as soon as anyone else is relying on your schema (and data warehousing certainly does). At that point, you're maintaining an API contract wheth

That's not true as soon as anyone else is relying on your schema (and data warehousing certainly does). At that point, you're maintaining an API contract whether you like it or not. Fortunately, databases also provide mechanisms for abstraction (like views) that can make this much easier on both the developers and the DBAs, which is an approach I've personally had good success with in companies with similar requirements. The key is to stop thinking of your database as an application-specific store and start thinking the same way you do for normal development--which tables and schemas are internal and subject to change, which ones are exposed to the outside world, what your stability guarantees are, etc. etc. Indeed, you can even guarantee backwards compatibility by versioning views you expose as APIs to other applications, and having each depending application create a view in its own schema that references the view--in Postgres, this means that only backwards-compatible migrations to the original view will go through! So when you find you can't make a change you need backwards-compatibly, you know it's time to make a new version, and you can keep the two versions of the API in sync by recomputing data in the new view to the old one until the depending applications can upgrade :)

Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
> That's not true as soon as anyone else is relying on your schema Well, don’t do that then. I think the parent comment suggested that it was an anti-pattern. Martin Fowler seems to agree: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/IntegrationDatabase.html https://martinfowler.com/bliki/IntegrationDatabase.html
- Jweb_Guru 5y ago
  With all due respect, Martin Fowler's opinion on this matters a lot less than those of the people you're actually working with. There are many advantages to exposing your data this way, particularly performance and transactional integrity advantages, that are extremely difficult (and sometimes impossible) to recover otherwise; and like I said, there is no inherent reason why presenting an abstract contract as a view needs to make evolving your codebase any harder than presenting one as a REST API (or whatever your other preferred choice is). It "ties you to the database you're using" only in the sense that anything you don't expose through the database won't enjoy the same performance optimizations and transactional consistency, which would be the case anyway if you used a second database. The scenario presented on the website (a separate organization controlling the database schema and application developers having to negotiate with them to get what they want in) is not what I'm proposing here anyway, and seems to be deliberately conflating the use of the database as an API and some sort of organizational pattern that is mostly orthogonal to that. There is no reason applications can't have their own private schemas that are managed by the application developers, who then choose what data to expose as public (and what as private), while still sharing a database with other developers. And for applications where database operations are particularly performance sensitive or safety critical, there's also no reason why not exposing your schema to other applications implies that application developers are allowed to have full control over it. I've been in organizations at various points in time that do both of these things. Of course, there may be other restrictions that make this a bad idea (such as security restrictions that for whatever reason can't be enforced within the database), but for consumption for BI processes this is not really applicable anyway.

Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago

> That's not true as soon as anyone else is relying on your schema Well, don’t do that then. I think the parent comment suggested that it was an anti-pattern. Martin Fowler seems to agree: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/IntegrationDatabase.html https://martinfowler.com/bliki/IntegrationDatabase.html

Jweb_Guru 5y ago
With all due respect, Martin Fowler's opinion on this matters a lot less than those of the people you're actually working with. There are many advantages to exposing your data this way, particularly performance and transactional integrity advantages, that are extremely difficult (and sometimes impossible) to recover otherwise; and like I said, there is no inherent reason why presenting an abstract contract as a view needs to make evolving your codebase any harder than presenting one as a REST API (or whatever your other preferred choice is). It "ties you to the database you're using" only in the sense that anything you don't expose through the database won't enjoy the same performance optimizations and transactional consistency, which would be the case anyway if you used a second database. The scenario presented on the website (a separate organization controlling the database schema and application developers having to negotiate with them to get what they want in) is not what I'm proposing here anyway, and seems to be deliberately conflating the use of the database as an API and some sort of organizational pattern that is mostly orthogonal to that. There is no reason applications can't have their own private schemas that are managed by the application developers, who then choose what data to expose as public (and what as private), while still sharing a database with other developers. And for applications where database operations are particularly performance sensitive or safety critical, there's also no reason why not exposing your schema to other applications implies that application developers are allowed to have full control over it. I've been in organizations at various points in time that do both of these things. Of course, there may be other restrictions that make this a bad idea (such as security restrictions that for whatever reason can't be enforced within the database), but for consumption for BI processes this is not really applicable anyway.