| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I'm somewhat concerned that this proliferates the number of ways you can achieve the same thing. Why do you think physical_schema_mapping is not appropriate for this? I don't think we should really worry about one-off use cases. It'd be a better practice to reflect the one-off nature of models like this in their actual schema and then have an appropriate mapping in the config. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
…er use cases.
This looked like a low hanging fruit. This allows setting physical schema override on a per model basis for power users who need it. Users are not likely going to start footgunning themselves with this any harder or faster than power users trying to fudge around with physical_schema_mapping for what would otherwise be one-off use cases for a specific model (for whatever the reason may be).
Furthermore, in theory, you can make any one-off physical table in the catalog a sqlmesh managed table with no copying or renaming using this in conjunction physical_version and forward only.
One good example I have are that we have these data marts. In them, only 1 table is a mission critical licensing table that we would like to store separately from the rest. But we would still like the views in one schema.