I think what Mathew really wants is support for table partitioning. You can get this right now with this library[1] for postgres. I’m not sure if this makes sense to add to core, however support is quite broad (MYSQL, MariaDB, Postgres and Oracle).
1. https://django-postgres-extra.readthedocs.io/en/master/table_partitioning.html Tom > On 27 Oct 2020, at 05:30, Jure Erznožnik <jure.erznoz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Matthew, > > I think you found the wrong mailing list for this question. Might I suggest > you try django-us...@googlegroups.com? The question seems better suited there. > > That said, I don't know why you wouldn't want to use foreign keys in this > scenario, but Django does support a thing called content types for what you > seem to be suggesting. There's a section on that page called "Generic > relations". > > Have a look. > > LP, > Jure > > On 27. 10. 20 01:21, Matthew Amstutz wrote: >> >> Hello, I was wondering about instance based management. If I'm wrong, please >> tell me. >> >> When we have users and user generated content in a large database, query >> times are increased significantly. Why is there no instance based manager >> (like the models.Manager()) that basically generates a table for each user >> and queries ONLY that table? Would that not just flatten the database >> instead of increasing it's size? For example, if we have 1,000,000 users all >> of which generate at least 10 posts per day and one of the users only >> generates 5 in the span of 10 days, unless we have a many to many field or >> something to hold those five posts, the query time to find their posts would >> be ridiculous. >> >> So if we have a table generated for each user that holds arbitrary >> connections to anything they generate, it would in theory cut query times >> significantly. Why is there no feature like this? Again, if I'm wrong please >> tell me but the amount of tables doesn't matter and instead the data they >> hold does so, in my understanding, 1,000,000,000 posts will always be the >> size of 1,000,000,000 posts no matter their organization. >> >> I've got ideas on implementation and even asyncronous supports as well as >> customization but I have no idea how to bring this up to the django >> developers and I'm not even sure it would work (though, no matter how hard I >> try, I can't see anything wrong with it). >> >> Let me know your input and if there's a way I can ask the django devs about >> this and possibly even suggest a few things pertaining to it. I'd like to >> help make django the best it can be and if this works and we can implement >> it, django will be very fast with user generated content. >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/7e36ded7-2f3d-43c2-881c-cbc75c80b5c2n%40googlegroups.com. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/944bfa26-a0bf-69bb-f76a-c0654910eb20%40gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/BA1C3DF2-3BD1-473F-BA01-016ACA251D5D%40tomforb.es.