I have a 'legacy' DB2 database that has many other applications and users. Trying to experiment with a rails app. Got everything working great with the ibm_db driver.
Problem is that I have some tables like schema1.products, schema1.sales and other tables like schema2.employees and schema2.payroll.
In the ibm_db adapter connection, I specify a schema, like schema1 or schema2, and I can work within that one schema, but I need to be able to easily (and transparently) reference both schemas basically interchangeably. I don't want to break the other apps, and the SQL I would normally write against DB2 doesn't have any of these restrictions (schemas can be mixed in SQL against DB2 without any trouble at all).
I would like to just specify table names as "schema1.products" for example and be done with it, but that doesn't seem to jive with the "rails way" of going about it.
Suggestions?
Schemas in DB2 are a very handy way to provide separate namespace to different applications. For example, you can separate all database objects for an application called "recruiting" from say application called "payroll". You can have objects (tables, views, procedures etc.) with the same name reside in multiple schemas and not colide with one another. Having your application set a schema is a handy way for it to say "hey, I am a payroll and I only want to work with my objects". So, what happens when you want to work with objects owned by another application? Well, in traditional procedural programming languages your application code would explicitly specify the schema when referencing an object in another schema or you would just do a SET CURRENT SCHEMA to switch to another schema. The problem with ORMs like ActiveRecord in Ruby on Rails is that you are not supposed to use SQL i.e. you don't have a good "Rails way" to specify schema when referencing an object. You can use find_by_sql and qualify your objects in the SQL statement but this is not what RoR people will consider to be good Rails.
You can fix things on the DB2 side. You can define a view per table in the "foreign" schema but you will have to take care to name the view so that it does not colide with what you already have in your primary schema. And, when you do that, you will undoubtedly create names that are not true Rails names.
Rails people are very proud of the "Rails way". It makes it very easy to create new applications. Rails is really awesome in this space. However, when it comes to integration with what is already out there Rails ... how do we say it ... sucks. I suggest you will have to accept to do things that are not the best examples of the Rails Way if you want to work with existing database structures.
How do i work with two different databases in rails with active records?
Related
I'm working on a web site that needs to be re-written in Rails. The website was before in Drupal, and there are almost 100,000 records in the database. Now, in Drupal there are tables that do not make any place in Rails in my opinion. For example,
Table name: node_type
It stores information regarding modules in Drupal.
Table name: node
It stores information for node(s) in Drupal.
Table name: semaphore # I've no idea what it is!
Table name: rdf_mapping # No idea
I've not been working with Drupal, so all I want to ask: Is it possible to have a schema for Rails, in which the existing 100,000 records can be imported from Drupal? If so, how? If not so, what are the other options that I'm left with? Or I have to design an entirely new database schema?
Drupal's database schema is not extensively documented for a reason... it's considered implementation details, is not a public API and should not be accessed directly, especially by outside application.
It is also very hard to document because for a given site, any enabled module can add its own tables and alter existing ones (usually adding columns). Plus you have module like Fields (part of Drupal core) that create tables dynamically depending on defined content types.
For a RoR developer, the Drupal schema will probably look weird and be uncomfortable to work with. I would follow suggestion from others, create a new schema for your new application and create a migration script to get the data from the old Drupal database to your new database. I don't knwon about RoR, but try to find a good data migration that allows replay, updates and rollback, etc. You will probably have to migrate the data multiple times to fixes bugs in the process.
Well, I don't have straight forward answers, but I have some ideas what I would do simply to not make so much changes in the database, or as per the comment you can write down an sql script to migrate the data according to the rails schema like types for each tables. Now, I am just intended here to share my thoughts, but I believe there might be more explicit solutions and this is do-able in many ways, may be you need some customizations(?) overriding the default conventions. According to my thoughts, you can try the following things.
Generated Related model skipping migrations
Define tables explicitly to each models like the following snippets:
class Semaphore < ActiveRecord::Base
self.table_name = "semaphore"
end
You have to define foreign keys and primary keys explicitly for both record id and associations.
You have generate time stamp or you can explicitly avoid that like the following ways
ActiveRecord::Base.record_timestamps = false
These are basic things I can see is important.
I have started a rails project on top of a legacy database. Standard practices required to use an ORM, like assigning ID field to each table, haven't been followed. So, I will not be creating all the models matching all the table. I need to run queries joining multiple tables using numerous conditions. I will mostly be using Model.find_by_sql or Model.connection.select_all methods. Where should I put these queries? Should I stash these in one of the models I have created that is involved in the query?
What's the standard practice for such a situation?
As much as possible, you still want to insulate the rest of your application from the details of the database by putting your queries and whatnot into the model layer. So yes, "stashing" in the right model object relevant to what you're trying to do seems like the right thing.
Are you allowed to change the schema of the database? If so, you may want to use migrations to slowly make your database look more like a standard ActiveRecord backing store.
You may also want to look into alternatives to ActiveRecord such as Sequel.
It is good idea to place the sql queries under sql folder under db. You need to create the sql folder.
I'm a newbie in rails and its a great platform.
I created an application but removed all the migration scripts.
I want to create the database with the tables from my existed models.
I can't find it on the net and I'm sure that might be an option to do that like any other platform (java hibernate, etc)
the command rails generate... only create the table without columns but I have columns in the existed models. so how can I do that?
Thanks!
If you've accidentally scrubbed your models and don't have any migrations, you can still generate a db/schema.rb file by running rake db:migrate and using that instead. It should reflect the current state of your database no matter what you've done to it.
If you create a migration with the important parts of this in it, as you'll notice the format is very similar, you will be able to replicate that configuration on other systems.
This is a bit of a heavy-handed way to do it, though. Each model should have its associated migration. Generally these are never deleted and only modified if strictly necessary, preserving a history of how the schema evolved into its final state.
If I understand your question correctly, there really isn't a way to construct your database tables from your ActiveRecord model classes - it's best to think of ActiveRecord models as more of a mapping between different flavors of relational databases and Ruby objects. In other words, ActiveRecord models abstract away the details of a database in order to become database-independent. They make your database data more easily accessible in Ruby. In doing so, they don't have the power to construct your tables. Think of them as very pretty getters and setters rather than a binding to a database.
This is exactly why migrations exist - they contain the database-specific stuff. They essentially contain the "other half" of your model definition - most of the application level stuff (like relations, which don't exist in, say, MySQL, right? They are an ActiveRecord convention) is defined on your model, but, for example, if you want to have a string on your Foo model, you define that in your migration, and the appropriate getters and setters will be available on your model for you to play with this string.
tl;dr: you need your migrations. The fact that they exist in Rails is an intentional design decision to separate the Ruby half of the models from the database half.
I'm a PHP programmer for over a decade and making the move to RoR. Here is what I'm used to from the PHP world:
Create DB schema in a tool like MySQL WorkBench -- and make fields precisely the size I want without wasting space (e.g. varchar(15) if it's ip_address).
Write models using Datamapper and place those exact field lengths and specifications in there so my app doesn't try to put in any larger values.
In the RoR world from what I've seen over the past two days, this seems to be the flow suggested:
Add fields / schema using the command line which creates a migration script and apparently created large ass fields (e.g. "ip_address string" is probably making the field varchar(255) in the db when I run the migration).
Put in validations during model creation.
Am I missing something here? What's the process in the RoR world for enterprise level applications where you actually want to create a highly customized schema? Do I manually write out migration scripts?
The scaffolding is what you use to get started quickly. But before running the migration, you can edit it and add constraints and specific column lengths.
Validations specified in the model (in the ruby code) does not carry the same level of security as validations /constraints specified on the database. So you still need to define those on the database.
While it is possible to work with Rails without migrations, I would strongly advice against it. In some cases it cannot be avoided (when working with legacy databases for instance).
The biggest advantage of using the migrations is that your database schema, accross different platforms, can be held in sync through different stages. E.g. your development and your production database. When deploying your code, the migrations will take care that the database is migrated correctly.
You can edit the migration scripts before you run the migration in order to customize the fields.
Yes, if you need to tweak the defaults, you edit the migration scripts.
Also note that you don't need to use migrations, they're a "convenience" while iterating through DB development. There's nothing that says you must use them. The active record pattern doesn't rely on how the DB tables/fields/etc. are created or defined.
For example, migrations are useless when dealing with legacy DBs, but you can still write a Rails app around them.
I'm learning Rails, and the target of my experiments is to realize something similar to Zoho Creator, Flexlist or Mytaskhelper, i.e. an app where the user can create his own database schema and views. What's the best strategy to pursue this?
I saw something about the Entity-Attribute-Value (EAV) but I'm not sure whether it's the best strategy or if there is some support in Rails for it.
If there was any tutorial in Rails about a similar project it would be great.
Probably it's not the easiest star for learning a new language and framework, but it would be something I really plan to do since a long time.
Your best bet will be MongoDB. It is easy to learn (because the query language is JavaScript) and it provides a schema-less data store. I would create a document for each form that defines the structure of the form. Then, whenever a user submits the data, you can put the data into a generic structure and store it in a collection based on the name of the form. In MongoDB collections are like tables, but you can create them on the fly. You can also create indexes on the fly to speed searches.
The problem you are trying to solve is one of the primary use cases for document oriented databases which MongoDB is. There are several other document oriented databases out there, but in my opinion MongoDB has the best API at the moment.
Give the MongoDB Ruby tutorial a read and I am sure you will want to give it a try.
Do NOT use a relational database to do this. Creating tables on the fly will be miserable and is a security hazard, not just for your system, but for the data of your users as well. You can avoid creating tables on the fly by creating a complex schema that tracks the form structures and each field type would require its own table. Rails makes this less painful with polymorphic associations, but it definitely is not pretty.
I think it's not exactly what you want, but this http://github.com/LeonB/has_magic_columns_fork but apparently this does something similar and you may get some idea to get started.
Using a document store like mongodb or couchdb would be the best way forward, as they are schema-less.
It should be possible to generate database tables by sending DDL-statements directly to the server or by dynamical generating a migration. Then you can generate the corresponding ActiveRecord models using Class.new(ActiveRecord::Base) do ... end. In principle this should work, but it has to be done with some care. But this definitely no job for a beginner.
A second solution could be to use MongoMapper and MongoDB. My idea is to use a collection to store the rows of your table and since MongoDB is schema less you can simply add attributes.
Using EntryAttributeValue allows you to store any schema data in a set amount of tables, however the performance implications and maintenance issues this creates may very well not be worth it.
Alternately you could store your data in XML and generate an XML schema to validate against.
All "generic" solutions will have issues with foreign keys or other constraints, uless you do all of that validation in memory before storage.