[development] One-to-one tables considered harmful

David Strauss david at fourkitchens.com
Mon Jun 4 08:08:33 UTC 2007

Rob Barreca wrote:
> I was training someone on some basics of developing a Drupal module last
> week and we needed to create a module tying data to a node. His initial
> instinct was to add a new column to {node} and I said "That is not the
> Drupal way. Drupal is modular so we must create our own table." So we
> created our own table JOINed to nid.

That is generally appropriate for a contributed module. My one-to-one
tables post is mostly about *core* tables.

> So, I don't pretend to be a master of all things DB, but what about
> getting closer to how CCK does a bit heavier manipulation of the DB
> schema. For example, if you have a CCK field used in more than one
> content type, CCK creates it's own dedicated table, if just one content
> type uses that CCK field, those columns go in that node type's table.
> Especially with the new Schema API, couldn't we allow a module to
> add/remove/update its own fields to {node}, for example, if it would
> really improve performance in certain circumstances and as long as we
> maintain our module's namespace? It would still be modular as we have
> .install files to do all the magic on install/uninstall.

Yes, that is more possible than ever with Schema API. I believe there is
already a hook to alter the schema for another module.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20070604/2b4b6874/attachment.pgp 

More information about the development mailing list