Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • 1
    Both ideas will probably lead the OP directly into hell, at least when he picks one and tries to solve all his problems with that ;-) Commented Dec 14, 2017 at 19:58
  • @DocBrown Could you please elaborate on your concerns? Commented Dec 15, 2017 at 9:39
  • Most of it you find in my answer. Individual tables (with duplicated attributes) have a high risk to cause maintenance problems. Putting all potential attributes in one monster table is seldom a good approach, too - if you think for a moment of one tenant who wants all available attributes in his application, you would probably not put them in one monster table either. Instead, you would model them according to normalization rules in different child and link tables. And such a split model is still useful even one when each tenants sees only a subset of the whole model. Commented Dec 15, 2017 at 14:11
  • ... so both of your suggestions heavily violate normalization rules, just in different ways. And I don't think a recommendation for just one single solution, without individual considerations on a per-attribute basis, will serve the OP well. Commented Dec 15, 2017 at 14:13