Re:Git as a NoSql Database (2016)
by dragonwriter on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @12:34PM
(#26713961)
> It's the solution that gives you 90% if the value with 5% of the work.
It’s not, though. History tables don’t provide only 111% of the value of this, and don’t take 20× the effort. They have a deterministic relation to base tables (so generating the schema from that of base tables, and the code necesaary for maintenance, is a scriptable mechanical transform if you have the base table schema.)
OTOH, lots of places I've seen approach this by haphazard addition of some of what I think of as “audit theater” columns to base tables (usually some or all of “created”, “created_at”, “last_updated”, “updated_by”), so its also not the worst approach I’ve seen.
It’s not, though. History tables don’t provide only 111% of the value of this, and don’t take 20× the effort. They have a deterministic relation to base tables (so generating the schema from that of base tables, and the code necesaary for maintenance, is a scriptable mechanical transform if you have the base table schema.)
OTOH, lots of places I've seen approach this by haphazard addition of some of what I think of as “audit theater” columns to base tables (usually some or all of “created”, “created_at”, “last_updated”, “updated_by”), so its also not the worst approach I’ve seen.