Laravel Auditable History Tables - Pro & Cons of SQL History or an auditing package?
My problem is that I'm not sure what to do. I'm thinking to build a similar database structure like this (source):
However, while researching I found out that there are auditing packages like this. So I wonder, what are the pro and cons?
My thoughts are:
SQL History:
Pro:
- Specific Source of Tables with specific attributes
- easy readable each row on DB viewers
Cons:
- harder to implement
like Laravel Auditing
Pro:
- Easy to implement via Trait
- Easy to get history data to Eloquent
Cons:
- single audit table containing all auditable changes of all tables
- hard to read on DB viewers
Would you go the hard way or just take the package?
laravel laravel-auditing
add a comment |
My problem is that I'm not sure what to do. I'm thinking to build a similar database structure like this (source):
However, while researching I found out that there are auditing packages like this. So I wonder, what are the pro and cons?
My thoughts are:
SQL History:
Pro:
- Specific Source of Tables with specific attributes
- easy readable each row on DB viewers
Cons:
- harder to implement
like Laravel Auditing
Pro:
- Easy to implement via Trait
- Easy to get history data to Eloquent
Cons:
- single audit table containing all auditable changes of all tables
- hard to read on DB viewers
Would you go the hard way or just take the package?
laravel laravel-auditing
add a comment |
My problem is that I'm not sure what to do. I'm thinking to build a similar database structure like this (source):
However, while researching I found out that there are auditing packages like this. So I wonder, what are the pro and cons?
My thoughts are:
SQL History:
Pro:
- Specific Source of Tables with specific attributes
- easy readable each row on DB viewers
Cons:
- harder to implement
like Laravel Auditing
Pro:
- Easy to implement via Trait
- Easy to get history data to Eloquent
Cons:
- single audit table containing all auditable changes of all tables
- hard to read on DB viewers
Would you go the hard way or just take the package?
laravel laravel-auditing
My problem is that I'm not sure what to do. I'm thinking to build a similar database structure like this (source):
However, while researching I found out that there are auditing packages like this. So I wonder, what are the pro and cons?
My thoughts are:
SQL History:
Pro:
- Specific Source of Tables with specific attributes
- easy readable each row on DB viewers
Cons:
- harder to implement
like Laravel Auditing
Pro:
- Easy to implement via Trait
- Easy to get history data to Eloquent
Cons:
- single audit table containing all auditable changes of all tables
- hard to read on DB viewers
Would you go the hard way or just take the package?
laravel laravel-auditing
laravel laravel-auditing
edited Nov 22 '18 at 10:59
Quetzy Garcia
1,62711317
1,62711317
asked Nov 12 '18 at 16:54
Shadrix
439313
439313
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I would use the package, mainly because of the ease of use and configuration.
In regards to the cons you mention:
- single audit table containing all auditable changes of all tables
- hard to read on DB viewers
The first, I can't really say it's a bad thing, since it makes it easy to relate a user to all the changes done across different models.
Otherwise, if you had an audit table per model (order_audits
, costumer_audits
, ...), you would have to use JOIN statements for simple things like getting the total number of changes a user did on a system, for instance.
The second reason you point out, I'm assuming it's because some of the data is being stored as JSON. If that's the case, you could always convert the column types that store that data from TEXT
to JSON
(covered in the documentation).
One of the benefits (on RDBMS that support it), is that you can use WHERE
statements on JSON type columns to apply filtering and given the JSON type has been around for a while, I bet there are database viewers that can display the data properly, instead of having a string of JSON.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53266750%2flaravel-auditable-history-tables-pro-cons-of-sql-history-or-an-auditing-pack%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I would use the package, mainly because of the ease of use and configuration.
In regards to the cons you mention:
- single audit table containing all auditable changes of all tables
- hard to read on DB viewers
The first, I can't really say it's a bad thing, since it makes it easy to relate a user to all the changes done across different models.
Otherwise, if you had an audit table per model (order_audits
, costumer_audits
, ...), you would have to use JOIN statements for simple things like getting the total number of changes a user did on a system, for instance.
The second reason you point out, I'm assuming it's because some of the data is being stored as JSON. If that's the case, you could always convert the column types that store that data from TEXT
to JSON
(covered in the documentation).
One of the benefits (on RDBMS that support it), is that you can use WHERE
statements on JSON type columns to apply filtering and given the JSON type has been around for a while, I bet there are database viewers that can display the data properly, instead of having a string of JSON.
add a comment |
I would use the package, mainly because of the ease of use and configuration.
In regards to the cons you mention:
- single audit table containing all auditable changes of all tables
- hard to read on DB viewers
The first, I can't really say it's a bad thing, since it makes it easy to relate a user to all the changes done across different models.
Otherwise, if you had an audit table per model (order_audits
, costumer_audits
, ...), you would have to use JOIN statements for simple things like getting the total number of changes a user did on a system, for instance.
The second reason you point out, I'm assuming it's because some of the data is being stored as JSON. If that's the case, you could always convert the column types that store that data from TEXT
to JSON
(covered in the documentation).
One of the benefits (on RDBMS that support it), is that you can use WHERE
statements on JSON type columns to apply filtering and given the JSON type has been around for a while, I bet there are database viewers that can display the data properly, instead of having a string of JSON.
add a comment |
I would use the package, mainly because of the ease of use and configuration.
In regards to the cons you mention:
- single audit table containing all auditable changes of all tables
- hard to read on DB viewers
The first, I can't really say it's a bad thing, since it makes it easy to relate a user to all the changes done across different models.
Otherwise, if you had an audit table per model (order_audits
, costumer_audits
, ...), you would have to use JOIN statements for simple things like getting the total number of changes a user did on a system, for instance.
The second reason you point out, I'm assuming it's because some of the data is being stored as JSON. If that's the case, you could always convert the column types that store that data from TEXT
to JSON
(covered in the documentation).
One of the benefits (on RDBMS that support it), is that you can use WHERE
statements on JSON type columns to apply filtering and given the JSON type has been around for a while, I bet there are database viewers that can display the data properly, instead of having a string of JSON.
I would use the package, mainly because of the ease of use and configuration.
In regards to the cons you mention:
- single audit table containing all auditable changes of all tables
- hard to read on DB viewers
The first, I can't really say it's a bad thing, since it makes it easy to relate a user to all the changes done across different models.
Otherwise, if you had an audit table per model (order_audits
, costumer_audits
, ...), you would have to use JOIN statements for simple things like getting the total number of changes a user did on a system, for instance.
The second reason you point out, I'm assuming it's because some of the data is being stored as JSON. If that's the case, you could always convert the column types that store that data from TEXT
to JSON
(covered in the documentation).
One of the benefits (on RDBMS that support it), is that you can use WHERE
statements on JSON type columns to apply filtering and given the JSON type has been around for a while, I bet there are database viewers that can display the data properly, instead of having a string of JSON.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 21:53
Quetzy Garcia
1,62711317
1,62711317
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53266750%2flaravel-auditable-history-tables-pro-cons-of-sql-history-or-an-auditing-pack%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown