Do migrations suck, or is it just me?

Question

Migrations are undoubtedly better than just firing up phpMyAdmin and changing the schema willy-nilly (as I did during my php days), but after using them for awhile, I think they're fatally flawed.

Version control is a solved problem. The main function of migrations is to keep a history of changes to your database. But storing a different file for each change is a clumsy way to track them. You don't create a new version of post.rb (or a file representing the delta) when you want to add a new virtual attribute -- why should you create a new migration when you want to add a new non-virtual attribute?

Put another way, just as you check post.rb into version control, why not check schema.rb into version control and make the changes to the file directly?

This is functionally the same as keeping a file for each delta, but it's much easier to work with. My mental model is "I want table X to have such and such columns (or really, I want model X to have such and such properties)" -- why should you have to infer from this how to get there from the existing schema; just open up schema.rb and give table X the right columns!

But even the idea that classes wrap tables is an implementation detail! Why can't I just open up post.rb and say:

 Class Post
    t.string :title
    t.text :body
 end

If you went with a model like this, you'd have to make a decision about what to do with existing data. But even then, migrations are overkill -- when you migrate data, you're going to lose fidelity when you use a migration's down method.

Anyway, my question is, even if you can't think of a better way, aren't migrations kind of gross?

Answer 1

why not check schema.rb into version control and make the changes to the file directly?

Because the database itself is not in sync with version control.

For instance, you could be using the head of the source tree. But you're connecting to a database that was defined as some past version, not the version you have checked out. The migrations allow you to upgrade or downgrade the database schema from any version and to any version, incrementally.

But to answer your last question, yes, migrations are kind of gross. They implement a redundant revision control system on top of another revision control system. However, neither of these revision control systems is really in sync with the database.

Answer 2

There are also data-related issues that are important to consider, which migrations solve.

Say an old version of my schema has a feet and inches column. For efficiency purposes, I want to combine that into just an inches column to make sorting and searching easier.

My migration can combine all of the feet and inches data into the inches column (feet * 12 + inches) while it's updating the database (i.e. just before it removes the feet column)

Obviously this being in a migration makes it automatically work when you later apply the changes to your production database.

Answer 3

I suppose given "even if you can't think of a better way", then yes, in the grand scheme of things, migrations are kind of gross. So are Ruby, Rails, ORMs, SQL, web apps, ...

Migrations have the (not insignificant) advantage that they exist. Gross-but-exists tends to win out over Pleasant-but-nonexistent. I'm sure there probably are pleasant and nonexistent ways to migrate your data, but I'm not sure what that means. :-)

Answer 4

As it stands, they're annoying and inadequate but quite possibly the best option we have available to us at present. Quite a few smart people have spent quite a lot of time working on the problem and this, so far, is about the best they've been able to come up with. After about 20 years of mostly hand-coding database version updates, I came very rapidly to appreciate migrations as a major improvement when I found ActiveRecord.

As you say, version control is a solved problem. Up to a point I'd agree: it's very solved for text files in particular, less so for other file types and not really very much at all for resources such as databases.

How do migrations look if you view them as version control deltas for databases? They're the sum of the deltas you have to apply to get a schema from one version to another. I'm not aware that even git, for all its super-powerfulness, can take two schema files and generate the necessary DDL to do that.

As far as declaring table content in the model, I believe that's what DataMapper does (no personal experience). I think there may be some DDL inference capabilities there as well.

"even if you can't think of a better way, aren't migrations kind of gross?"

Yes. But they're less gross than anything else we have. Do please let us know when you've completed the non-gross alternative.

Answer 5

OK, I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that you're probably working all by yourself. In a group development project the power of each individual to take responsibility for just his/her changes to the database required for the code that developer is writing is much much more important.

The alternative is that larger groups of programmers (e.g. 10-15 Java developers where I work) end up relying on a couple of dedicated full time database administrators to do that along with their other maintenance, optimization, etc. duties.

Answer 6

Just to paraphrase what others have said: migrations allow you to protect the data as your schema evolves. The notion of maintaining a single schema.rb file is attractive only until your app goes into production. Thereafter, you'll need a way to migrate your existing users' data as your schema changes.