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.

Required fields*

6
  • 3
    This sounds like an XY problem to me. Why do you need tables dynamically named like this? That is a strong indication that the design is less than ideal. Seems like a single table to hold that data would be appropriate with one extra column to hold the identity value. Commented Jan 23, 2023 at 20:03
  • We are data logging devices and each device could have anywhere from 1 to 150 points of data being logged every 15 minutes. There could be 1000+ devices per site and 50+ sites per server the software is running on. Devices are rarely identical so you might have 30 with 45 points of data, 120 with 20 points of data. A single table wouldn't work at all. Commented Jan 23, 2023 at 20:50
  • Not sure how those numbers mean you have to resort to a dynamic architecture. It still seems to me that there is a more standard approach to whatever it is you are trying to do that wouldn't require so much dynamic logic. Commented Jan 23, 2023 at 20:53
  • How would you take a infinite number of different devices with a different number of values of different data types and store them all into the same table??? It only makes sense logically to have a table per device. If there were a set number of device types with the same points sure but there isn't which is why the tables, and columns themselves, are all dynamically created. Commented Jan 23, 2023 at 21:00
  • Either add each value as another row or use JSON, or maybe even XML. Commented Jan 23, 2023 at 21:03