5 ms·

The initial design was quite flawed, in addition to not using sequences they should not use one DB object per organization, but rather a single object with an "

by devit 5y ago

The initial design was quite flawed, in addition to not using sequences they should not use one DB object per organization, but rather a single object with an "organization" field.

wheybags 5y ago
That's a little unfair, I don't think there's enough information in the article to come to a conclusion either way.
scarmig 5y ago
That's just a design choice: single tenancy vs multitenancy. I agree that multitenant databases tend to be more pleasant to work with as a developer of dependent services, but there are plenty of reasons (data isolation; resource allocation guarantees) one might want a single tenant db.
peterejhamilton 5y ago
Hey - author here! I'm not totally sure I follow on this one. Happy to chat more if there's any context missing from the article that you'd find interesting :)
CodeWriter23 5y ago
> but rather a single object with an "organization" field. In your opinion. There are advantages of sharding tables by tenant boundaries. Data isolation and query speed to name a couple.