Re: [development] Is it possible to have separate table for different content types in D7
There is a module that makes one table for each content type, much like cck worked in drupal 6 met vriendelijke groeten, Peter Droogmans Attiks Ketsstraat 94 2140 Borgerhout 03 288 61 17 0497 44 44 77 -----Original Message----- From: Jamie Holly [hovercrafter@earthlink.net] Received: Friday, 11 Feb 2011, 18:28 To: development@drupal.org [development@drupal.org] Subject: Re: [development] Is it possible to have separate table for different content types in D7 Joins on properly indexed tables (such as nodes + fields) don't have any serious performance impact. It' the very basis of a relational database, so they are made to handle them optimally. One thing to consider with your multiple table approach. What if you want a page listing all content on the site, ordered by create date? You are going to have to get into a very serious query and it will force the database to use filesort and temporary tables. There's no getting around that when sorting by a column distributed amongst multiple tables. This performance impact will be thousands times worse than having all your content types in the single node table. Another issue is keeping unique nids (though not that complex to work out). In Drupal, the nid is an auto increment field. You would want to manage the new nids on your own so that two different content types don't have the same NID. If they do, you would severely break other modules, like comments.
From an overall management stand point, I would keep all the nodes in the same table and look at better caching solutions. If your going to be getting mostly anonymous visitors, then something like Boost (or Varnish if this is a VPS or dedicated server) will give you far more performance gains than anything else.
Jamie Holly http://www.intoxination.net http://www.hollyit.net On 2/11/2011 12:00 PM, Deva wrote: In my case i am going to have lots of content types with lots of cck fields. D7 creates new table for each cck field. So while reading a node from database. It is going to do a join. I dont think that is good thing. That is why i was checking if it is possible to have different table for each content type. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:48 PM, nan wich <nan_wich@bellsouth.net<mailto:nan_wich@bellsouth.net>> wrote: Blake, I totally agree. When I created my first node module, even the docs you mention didn't exist. I had to look at other modules to get an idea of how to do it. I even had to do the same with adding fields to Views. "...unless what they offer is documented, in a manner that others can recreate... it may as well not exist" is absolutely true. However, one must also realize that one form of documentation may not "fit all." For example, I really appreciate all the Views docs that exist now, but most are written way over my head - and I am no beginner with Drupal. I fully accept that my failure to grasp those docs are my fault, but I have heard many others express the same feeling, while, at the same time, I see others just glance at it and turn out perfect code right away. Different people learn in different ways. I guess that's why there are many books. Nancy Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. -- Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. ________________________________ From: Blake Senftner <bsenftner@earthlink.net<mailto:bsenftner@earthlink.net>> To: development@drupal.org<mailto:development@drupal.org> Sent: Fri, February 11, 2011 10:45:33 AM Subject: Re: [development] Is it possible to have separate table for different content types in D7 Granted, I've not yet dived into the D7 specifics of creating custom content types, but I'd like to address a point Nancy makes here: Lastly, why? I would think that the overhead of managing multiple tables would outweigh any potential gains. I can't even begin to think what you would have to do to Views to make it work in your scenario. I consider it an issue of quality documentation. When I was first learning module development, CCK was nice, but I could not figure out how to programmatically create or manage CCK fields. Being unable to programmatically create content types with CCK meant that my modules either could not implement content types, or I'd have to make them without CCK. There was no quality documentation explaining CCK at the time, so via books like "Front End Drupal" and "Pro Drupal Module Development" I learned how to create my own tables and manage them myself, including the not-difficult-because-it's-documented integration of custom fields with Views. (see: http://views-help.doc.logrus.com/help/views/api-tables). I absolutely do not mean to pick on Nancy. I love Drupal. I'm betting my company on the Drupal technology stack. But developers have got to realize that unless what they offer is documented, in a manner that others can recreate and expand on your module's facilities, it may as well not exist. Poor or missing documentation leads to poor, incorrect, or missing integration with other modules. (Sorry if this sounds like a rant. Trying to figure out things in Drupal is a sore spot for me.) Sincerely, -Blake bsenftner@earthlink.net<mailto:bsenftner@earthlink.net> www.BlakeSenftner.com<http://www.blakesenftner.com/> On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:16 AM, nan wich wrote: There are several extra questions to be asked here: 1. Define "separate." If one creates a node module that creates content types, then one must manage the extra fields - generally in new (i.e. separated from node & node_revisions) tables created by the module. 2. If one is talking about content created by other (e.g. core) modules, then the answer is maybe. Take a look at the sql rewriting hooks or whatever D7 has done to them. 3. Lastly, why? I would think that the overhead of managing multiple tables would outweigh any potential gains. I can't even begin to think what you would have to do to Views to make it work in your scenario. Nancy Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. -- Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. ________________________________ From: Deva <devendra.in@gmail.com<mailto:devendra.in@gmail.com>> To: development@drupal.org<mailto:development@drupal.org> Sent: Fri, February 11, 2011 7:59:26 AM Subject: [development] Is it possible to have separate table for different content types in D7 Hi All, Is possible to have separate table for each content type? Thanks in advance -- :DJ -- :DJ
Just thought I'd take a moment to help you understand a few of the advantages of keeping all Drupal info in one table (different content types of course). I can design a single "Services" interface and set it up to "share" all or some of my information types without having to know the table name for each type between a couple of my web sites, even if the databases are different (each DB has specific requirements for table names that in some cases are incompatible). Same is true for aggregation feeds, parameter based type creation on module install, and form mapping, and so on. Separate tables is something that is only important to programmers, and while they may deny it, one of the reasons they feel they need separate tables is the same as two kids wanting separate toy boxes for "their toys". Warren Vail Vail Systems Technology warren@vailtech.net -----Original Message----- From: development-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:development-bounces@drupal.org] On Behalf Of Peter Droogmans Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 9:57 AM To: development@drupal.org Subject: Re: [development] Is it possible to have separate table for different content types in D7 There is a module that makes one table for each content type, much like cck worked in drupal 6 met vriendelijke groeten, Peter Droogmans Attiks Ketsstraat 94 2140 Borgerhout 03 288 61 17 0497 44 44 77 -----Original Message----- From: Jamie Holly [hovercrafter@earthlink.net] Received: Friday, 11 Feb 2011, 18:28 To: development@drupal.org [development@drupal.org] Subject: Re: [development] Is it possible to have separate table for different content types in D7 Joins on properly indexed tables (such as nodes + fields) don't have any serious performance impact. It' the very basis of a relational database, so they are made to handle them optimally. One thing to consider with your multiple table approach. What if you want a page listing all content on the site, ordered by create date? You are going to have to get into a very serious query and it will force the database to use filesort and temporary tables. There's no getting around that when sorting by a column distributed amongst multiple tables. This performance impact will be thousands times worse than having all your content types in the single node table. Another issue is keeping unique nids (though not that complex to work out). In Drupal, the nid is an auto increment field. You would want to manage the new nids on your own so that two different content types don't have the same NID. If they do, you would severely break other modules, like comments.
From an overall management stand point, I would keep all the nodes in the same table and look at better caching solutions. If your going to be getting mostly anonymous visitors, then something like Boost (or Varnish if this is a VPS or dedicated server) will give you far more performance gains than anything else.
Jamie Holly http://www.intoxination.net http://www.hollyit.net On 2/11/2011 12:00 PM, Deva wrote: In my case i am going to have lots of content types with lots of cck fields. D7 creates new table for each cck field. So while reading a node from database. It is going to do a join. I dont think that is good thing. That is why i was checking if it is possible to have different table for each content type. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:48 PM, nan wich <nan_wich@bellsouth.net<mailto:nan_wich@bellsouth.net>> wrote: Blake, I totally agree. When I created my first node module, even the docs you mention didn't exist. I had to look at other modules to get an idea of how to do it. I even had to do the same with adding fields to Views. "...unless what they offer is documented, in a manner that others can recreate... it may as well not exist" is absolutely true. However, one must also realize that one form of documentation may not "fit all." For example, I really appreciate all the Views docs that exist now, but most are written way over my head - and I am no beginner with Drupal. I fully accept that my failure to grasp those docs are my fault, but I have heard many others express the same feeling, while, at the same time, I see others just glance at it and turn out perfect code right away. Different people learn in different ways. I guess that's why there are many books. Nancy Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. -- Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. ________________________________ From: Blake Senftner <bsenftner@earthlink.net<mailto:bsenftner@earthlink.net>> To: development@drupal.org<mailto:development@drupal.org> Sent: Fri, February 11, 2011 10:45:33 AM Subject: Re: [development] Is it possible to have separate table for different content types in D7 Granted, I've not yet dived into the D7 specifics of creating custom content types, but I'd like to address a point Nancy makes here: Lastly, why? I would think that the overhead of managing multiple tables would outweigh any potential gains. I can't even begin to think what you would have to do to Views to make it work in your scenario. I consider it an issue of quality documentation. When I was first learning module development, CCK was nice, but I could not figure out how to programmatically create or manage CCK fields. Being unable to programmatically create content types with CCK meant that my modules either could not implement content types, or I'd have to make them without CCK. There was no quality documentation explaining CCK at the time, so via books like "Front End Drupal" and "Pro Drupal Module Development" I learned how to create my own tables and manage them myself, including the not-difficult-because-it's-documented integration of custom fields with Views. (see: http://views-help.doc.logrus.com/help/views/api-tables). I absolutely do not mean to pick on Nancy. I love Drupal. I'm betting my company on the Drupal technology stack. But developers have got to realize that unless what they offer is documented, in a manner that others can recreate and expand on your module's facilities, it may as well not exist. Poor or missing documentation leads to poor, incorrect, or missing integration with other modules. (Sorry if this sounds like a rant. Trying to figure out things in Drupal is a sore spot for me.) Sincerely, -Blake bsenftner@earthlink.net<mailto:bsenftner@earthlink.net> www.BlakeSenftner.com<http://www.blakesenftner.com/> On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:16 AM, nan wich wrote: There are several extra questions to be asked here: 1. Define "separate." If one creates a node module that creates content types, then one must manage the extra fields - generally in new (i.e. separated from node & node_revisions) tables created by the module. 2. If one is talking about content created by other (e.g. core) modules, then the answer is maybe. Take a look at the sql rewriting hooks or whatever D7 has done to them. 3. Lastly, why? I would think that the overhead of managing multiple tables would outweigh any potential gains. I can't even begin to think what you would have to do to Views to make it work in your scenario. Nancy Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. -- Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. ________________________________ From: Deva <devendra.in@gmail.com<mailto:devendra.in@gmail.com>> To: development@drupal.org<mailto:development@drupal.org> Sent: Fri, February 11, 2011 7:59:26 AM Subject: [development] Is it possible to have separate table for different content types in D7 Hi All, Is possible to have separate table for each content type? Thanks in advance -- :DJ -- :DJ
participants (2)
-
Peter Droogmans -
Warren Vail