![]() That API should do the isolation, not some separation of tables. You usually don't do that, but instead create an API for pre-defined queries. This kind of isolation only makes sense if you create a DB user for each user and let them directly run SQL queries on your database. Your arguments in favor table-per-user are wrong: I will enhance the security (principle of least privilege).I will never edit the data inside, only add new rows.Which pretty much tells that is a terrible idea to have multiple table but does it really matter since in my case I found this post over here: What are the advantages/disadvantages of creating a new set of tables for each user? I dont find anything wrong with using a table for each user but is it a common tachnique to design a database like that? That would flood the database (not big deal if it can handle it).However what if 10.000 users have a table?. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |