Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of SchemaEvolution

Timestamp:

Feb 27, 2006, 9:21:39 PM (19 years ago)

Author:

Jacob

Comment:

Added writeup/proposal for schema evolution

SchemaEvolution

@@ +1 @@
+{{{
+#!rst
+Schema migration is one of those "hard" problems that I think will be impossible
+to get right for all the cases.  What follows are my thoughts on how to get
+as close as possible in Django.
+
+(please leave comments at the bottom and not inline to the proposal!)
+
+Prior art
+---------
+
+A few bits of prior arts I examined.
+
+    * http://api.rubyonrails.com/classes/ActiveRecord/Migration.html
+    * http://sqlobject.org/sqlobject-admin.html#versioning-upgrading
+    * http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/127.php
+    
+Use cases
+---------
+
+    1. Alice has a blog application written in Django.  A blog entry looks 
+       like::
+        
+            class Entry(models.Model):
+                title = models.CharField(maxlength=30)
+                body = models.TextField()
+                
+       After using this to write some blog entries, she realizes that she
+       really should have had a publish date field on her model, and she
+       wants to add one.
+       
+       Alice doesn't particularly care about old entries; she just wants them to
+       have an empty publish date. She knows just enough SQL to understand how
+       relational databases work, but that's about it.
+       
+    2. Ben has a simple ticket tracker with a ticket class that contains::
+    
+            class Ticket(models.Model):
+                reporter    = models.EmailField()
+                owner       = models.EmailField()
+                status      = models.IntegerField(choices=STATUS_CHOICES)
+                description = models.TextField()
+                
+       After two years of use, Ben wants to product information to his ticket
+       tracker and has decided he doesn't care about who reported a ticket, so
+       he writes these models::
+       
+            class Product(models.Model):
+                ...
+       
+            class Ticket(models.Model):
+                owner       = models.EmailField()
+                status      = models.IntegerField(choices=STATUS_CHOICES)
+                description = models.TextField()
+                product     = models.ForeignKey(Product)
+                
+       Ben knows quite a bit of SQL; he's also the company DBA.
+    
+    3. Carol supports a newsroom with a set of models that look like::
+    
+            class Reporter(models.Model):
+                ...
+                
+            class Article(models.Model):
+                reporter = models.ForeignKey(Reporter)
+                ...
+                
+            class Section(models.Model):
+                stories = models.ManyToManyField(Article)
+                ...
+                
+       As it turns out, her conception of ``Section`` was naive, and on top of
+       that she wants to separate certain types of articles into multiple
+       classes. She rewrites her models to look like::
+       
+            class Reporter(models.Model):
+                ...    
+            
+            class Category(models.Model):
+                ...
+            
+            class Article(models.Model):
+                reporter = models.ForeignKey(Reporter)
+                categories = models.ManyToManyField(Category)
+                ...
+                
+            class Obituary(models.Model):
+                ...
+                
+            class WeddingAnnouncement(models.Model):
+                ...
+                
+            class Section(models.Model):
+                included_categories = models.ManyToManyField(Category)
+                ...
+        
+       Carol obviously needs to keep all the data in her system. Some articles
+       will need to be moved into ``Obituary`` or ``WeddingAnnouncement``,
+       objects. Additionally, stories will be assigned categories from a mapping
+       given to her by the web editor since the direct mapping has been removed.
+       
+       To add to the fun, Carol has 7 different news sites with separate
+       databases using this system.  Three of those systems run MySQL, the
+       other four run PostgreSQL.
+       
+       Carol is a very experienced developer; she's been doing this web thing
+       for almost ten years now.
+        
+Possible solutions
+------------------
+
+Write SQL
+`````````
+    
+This is the current situation: you write a bunch of SQL and bung it into
+your interactive interpreter.
+
+Ramifications:
+    Alice is a simple enough case that she shouldn't have to know
+    SQL to make this work.
+    
+    This situation sounds good to Ben: it's just two lines of SQL.
+    
+    Carol would have to apply this SQL against 7 different databases (which is 
+    a waste of time), and she'd still have to write a bunch of Python code
+    to deal with the data migration.
+        
+Automatic db introspection
+``````````````````````````
+
+In this scenario, Django inspects your models and your database, and 
+outputs the SQL for adding/removing fields.  You're supposed to 
+inspect the SQL and then stick it into your database using something
+like::
+
+    $ ./manage.py sqlupdate | psql mydb
+
+Ramifications:
+    This works for Alice; she does ``django-admin sqlupgrade | mysql`` and
+    is happy.  However, if the SQL that Django put out happened to have a
+    mistake in it, she might not have noticed, and could have lost some
+    data.
+    
+    Ben loves this situation; it does his two lines of SQL automatically,
+    and he can poke at what's put out to make sure it's right for him.
+    
+    This doesn't really help Carol.  Although the SQL that is put out is a
+    start, it doesn't really get her very far.  She still has to write
+    a bunch of data migration by hand, and she also has no way of applying
+    the SQL she writes quickly.
+        
+Automatically applied migration code
+````````````````````````````````````
+
+In this scenario, you give your models a version. When it comes time to upgrade,
+you write a "upgrade-to-version-3" script and increment your version number.
+When you run a ``django-admin`` command (probably the newly-added ``syncdb``),
+Django notices that you've added an upgrade script and runs it automatically.
+
+This type of system comes in two (not necessarily exclusive) flavors:
+    
+    * SQL only, where your upgrade scripts are in SQL.
+    
+    * ActiveRecord Migration style, where you write your migrations
+      in Python (which gets converted to SQL for you).
+      
+Each situation also could support symmetric migration (where you provide
+both an upgrade and a downgrade script).
+
+Ramifications:
+    Alice doesn't like the SQL flavor at all (she wants to use Python!). The
+    Pythonic one works very well for her since the syntax mirrors other
+    parts of Django she's familiar with.  However, she'd prefer something
+    like the automatic solution since it would save her from having to type
+    anything at all.
+    
+    Ben really likes this one; the SQL is still easy to write, and it gets
+    into SVN so he can track his upgrades.
+    
+    Carol loves this one.  She can write custom SQL/Python that takes care of 
+    all the situation she needs.  The Python option is a better fit for her
+    since she has lots of custom code she needs to run.
+    
+Introspection + migration
+`````````````````````````
+
+This approach is a combination of `Automatic db introspection`_ and
+`Automatically applied migration code`_ -- one command produces a migration
+script, you tickle your version number, and the ``syncdb`` runs the migrations.
+
+Ramifications:
+    This works very well for Alice, and she gets the added bonus of having 
+    nice migrations stored for future inspection.
+    
+    This is Ben's favorite option.
+    
+    Carol's indifferent about this as opposed to the previous one: it helps 
+    slightly, but not all that much, really.
+    
+Conclusions
+-----------
+
+    * "Just write SQL" sucks and is obviously wrong and needs to be fixed.
+    
+    * DB introspection only goes so far, and doesn't give any way to extend
+      what comes out beyond "just write SQL".
+      
+    * Migration code works pretty well -- which is obvious if you look at how
+      successful Rails has been with the feature.  The Python flavor is obviously
+      more powerful, but for some uses SQL works well.
+      
+    * Introspection + migration seems to be best-of-breed; it even has the added
+      bonus of getting Alice to save her migrations in source control.
+      
+Proposal
+--------
+
+So.
+
+Given all the above, here's how I think schema evolution should work in Django:
+
+    * An optional module, ``django.contrib.evolution`` provides a 
+      way to store versions in the database::
+      
+            class ModelVersion(models.Model):
+                content_type = models.ForeignKey(ContentType)
+                version      = models.PositiveIntegerField()
+
+      This makes evolution optional and thus doesn't clutter up your tablespace
+      if you don't need it.
+      
+    * Models grow a ``version`` attribute::
+    
+            class MyModel(models.Model):
+                ...
+                
+                class Meta:
+                    version = 3
+                    
+    * ``django-admin syncdb`` applies evolutions using the following steps:
+    
+        #. Makes sure evolution is installed before proceeding.
+        
+        #. For each content type, checks that the version in the database matches
+           the version in defined in the model.  For those that don't match...
+           
+        #. Django looks for evolutions in ``<app_package>/upgrade/``.  Evolutions
+           can either be SQL scripts named ``to_version_X.sql`` or Python scripts
+           named ``to_version_X.py``.
+           
+        #. ``django.contrib.evolution`` will contain utilities to abstract evolution
+           for different db backends.  This exact API is TBD.
+           
+        #. For SQL evolutions, if a file named ``to_version_X.out`` exists, ``syncdb``
+           will expect the output of the evolution to match the text file EXACTLY.  If
+           any differences happen, the transaction will be rolled back (for that reason
+           SQL evolution scripts must not contain BEGIN/COMMIT).
+           
+           For Python evolutions, there will be some way of doing similar tests.
+           
+    * ``django-admin find-migrations`` (or somesuch) will inspect the database
+      and pump out SQL evolution scripts into the right place in the app
+      package(s). Users will then upgrade the version number and run ``syncdb``.
+}}}
+
+= Comments =
+
+''leave comments here or post 'em to django-dev''