PostgreSQL schema designer
Turn application requirements into production-ready PostgreSQL schemas with AI guidance
For people who need to design a PostgreSQL database schema from scratch or restructure an existing one, and want expert guidance on normalization, data types, constraints, partitioning, and trade-offs.
About this tool
Designing a PostgreSQL schema is one of the most consequential decisions in any application. A poorly chosen schema leads to years of workarounds — expensive migrations, bloated indexes, application-level hacks to compensate for missing constraints, and queries that cannot be optimized no matter how many indexes you add. A well-designed schema, on the other hand, makes your queries simple, your constraints enforceable, and your future migrations straightforward. The schema you choose today determines the upper bound of what your database can do efficiently tomorrow.
This tool takes your application requirements — entities, relationships, access patterns, expected data volumes, and business rules — and produces a production-ready PostgreSQL schema. It handles the decisions that trip up even experienced developers: when to normalize and when to denormalize, whether to use text or varchar(n), integer or bigint, timestamp or timestamptz, UUID v4 or UUID v7, JSONB columns or relational tables, table inheritance or declarative partitioning. Each recommendation comes with a clear explanation of the trade-offs involved, so you understand not just what to do but why.
Data type selection alone is full of pitfalls that PostgreSQL newcomers rarely anticipate. Using integer for a primary key seems fine until your table crosses 2.1 billion rows and inserts start failing. Choosing varchar(255) out of habit wastes nothing in PostgreSQL (unlike MySQL), but it signals to other developers that 255 is a meaningful limit when it usually is not. Storing timestamps without time zone information works in development but creates silent data corruption the moment your application runs across multiple time zones. And using random UUID v4 as a primary key causes severe B-tree index fragmentation, write amplification, and poor buffer cache utilization — problems that only surface at scale. This tool catches all of these issues and recommends the right type with the right justification.
The tool goes beyond generating CREATE TABLE statements. It considers your access patterns to recommend appropriate indexes — including partial indexes for filtered queries, expression indexes for computed lookups, and covering indexes to enable index-only scans. It suggests CHECK and EXCLUSION constraints to enforce business rules at the database level, designs foreign key relationships with the correct ON DELETE behavior (RESTRICT, CASCADE, or SET NULL depending on your domain semantics), and proposes partitioning strategies for tables that will grow to hundreds of millions of rows. It also flags common schema design mistakes — like using serial instead of generated always as identity, storing time zones in application code instead of using timestamptz, creating polymorphic associations that cannot be enforced with foreign keys, or using the Entity-Attribute-Value pattern when a JSONB column would be simpler and faster.
Normalization decisions deserve particular attention. Blindly normalizing to third normal form is not always optimal — a denormalized column that saves a three-table join on every page load can be the right trade-off if you accept the update complexity. Conversely, under-normalization leads to update anomalies, inconsistent data, and constraints that can only be enforced in application code (where bugs inevitably creep in). This tool evaluates your specific read/write ratios and consistency requirements to recommend the right normalization level for each part of your schema, including materialized views as a middle ground.
For existing schemas, you can paste your current DDL and describe the problems you are facing. The tool will analyze structural issues, suggest migrations with concrete ALTER TABLE statements, and explain the trade-offs of each change. It considers locking implications — adding a column with a default on a large table requires an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock in PostgreSQL versions before 11, but is near-instant in 11+ — and recommends online migration strategies where appropriate. Whether you are building a new application, refactoring a monolith, or preparing a schema to handle 10x growth, this tool provides the expert-level guidance that usually requires a senior database architect.
Examples
-- Multi-tenant SaaS with organizations, users, and audit logging
-- Requirements:
-- - Organizations have many users, users belong to one organization
-- - Every data change must be audit-logged with who, what, when
-- - Users have roles (owner, admin, member) per organization
-- - Expect 10K orgs, 500K users, 100M+ audit log entries
-- - Primary access pattern: query within a single organization
create table organization (
organization_id bigint generated always as identity primary key,
slug text not null unique,
display_name text not null,
settings jsonb not null default '{}',
created_at timestamptz not null default now(),
updated_at timestamptz not null default now()
);
create table app_user (
user_id bigint generated always as identity primary key,
organization_id bigint not null
references organization (organization_id) on delete restrict,
email text not null,
display_name text not null,
role text not null default 'member'
check (role in ('owner', 'admin', 'member')),
is_active boolean not null default true,
created_at timestamptz not null default now(),
updated_at timestamptz not null default now(),
unique (organization_id, email)
);
create table audit_log (
log_id bigint generated always as identity,
organization_id bigint not null,
user_id bigint,
action text not null,
entity_type text not null,
entity_id bigint,
old_values jsonb,
new_values jsonb,
ip_address inet,
created_at timestamptz not null default now(),
primary key (organization_id, created_at, log_id)
) partition by range (created_at);
A multi-tenant schema showing organization-scoped users with role constraints, and an audit log partitioned by time range. The audit log uses a composite primary key that supports partition pruning, and the user table enforces unique emails per organization at the database level.
I need to design a schema for an e-commerce platform.
Entities:
- Products with variants (size, color), each variant has its own SKU, price, and inventory
- Categories (hierarchical, up to 4 levels deep)
- Orders with line items, shipping addresses, payment status
- Customer reviews with ratings (1-5 stars)
Access patterns:
- Browse products by category (most frequent)
- Search products by name and attributes
- View a single product with all variants
- Place an order (writes to orders + line items + inventory in one transaction)
- Show order history for a customer
Scale: ~50K products, ~200K variants, ~5M orders/year, ~1M reviews
Questions:
- Should product attributes (like material, brand) be JSONB or separate tables?
- How to model the category hierarchy? adjacency list, materialized path, or ltree?
- Should I partition the orders table?
A natural-language requirements description. The AI will produce a complete schema addressing each entity, recommend ltree or materialized path for categories, suggest JSONB for flexible product attributes with GIN indexing, and advise on orders partitioning strategy based on the 5M/year volume.
Inputs and outputs
What you provide
- Application requirements — entities, relationships, and business rules
- Expected data volumes and access patterns (read/write ratio, query shapes)
- Existing DDL for schema review or refactoring
- PostgreSQL version and deployment constraints
What you get
- Complete CREATE TABLE DDL with data types, constraints, and comments
- Index recommendations tailored to access patterns
- Partitioning strategy with maintenance guidance
- Migration SQL for schema evolution with locking considerations
Use cases
- Designing a new PostgreSQL schema from application requirements, entity descriptions, and expected query patterns
- Choosing between normalization and denormalization based on read/write ratios and consistency requirements
- Selecting optimal data types — text vs varchar, integer vs bigint, timestamp vs timestamptz, UUID v4 vs v7 — with clear rationale
- Designing partitioning strategies (range, list, hash) for high-volume tables and understanding partition pruning
- Adding constraints (CHECK, UNIQUE, EXCLUSION, foreign keys) to enforce business rules at the database level rather than application code
- Refactoring an existing schema to fix structural problems like missing constraints, incorrect types, or polymorphic associations
Features
- Generates complete CREATE TABLE DDL with proper data types, defaults, constraints, and comments
- Recommends normalization level (1NF through BCNF) based on your specific access patterns and consistency requirements
- Designs partitioning schemes for large tables with partition key selection and maintenance guidance
- Suggests indexes tailored to your query patterns, including partial indexes, expression indexes, and covering indexes
- Identifies anti-patterns like EAV schemas, polymorphic associations, stringly-typed columns, and implicit type coercions
- Provides migration SQL (ALTER TABLE) for evolving existing schemas with minimal locking
Frequently asked questions
When should I use text vs varchar(n) in PostgreSQL?
In PostgreSQL, text and varchar(n) have identical storage and performance characteristics — there is no speed penalty for using text. The only difference is that varchar(n) adds a length check constraint. In practice, text is almost always the better choice. Length validation is an application concern that changes over time (email max length was once 254 characters, then RFC 5321 clarified 320), and altering a varchar(n) column to increase its length requires an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock on the table prior to PostgreSQL 9.2 and still requires a table rewrite if you decrease the length. If you genuinely need to enforce a maximum length at the database level, prefer text with a CHECK (length(column_name) <= N) constraint — this is easier to modify later because you can drop and recreate the check constraint without rewriting the table. The only exception is if you are interfacing with external systems or standards that require a fixed-length field, in which case char(n) might be appropriate. Never use varchar without a length specifier — it is functionally identical to text but less idiomatic.
Should I use UUID or bigint for primary keys in PostgreSQL?
Both are valid choices, and the decision depends on your architecture. bigint (8 bytes) is smaller, naturally sequential (which gives excellent B-tree insert performance and cache locality), and human-readable. It is the right default for most single-database applications. UUIDs (16 bytes) are useful when you need globally unique identifiers without coordination — distributed systems, multi-tenant architectures where IDs are exposed in URLs, or when merging data from multiple sources. If you choose UUIDs, strongly prefer UUID v7 (time-ordered, available via the pg_uuidv7 extension or application-side generation) over UUID v4 (random). UUID v4 causes severe B-tree index fragmentation because values are randomly distributed, leading to poor cache utilization and write amplification. UUID v7 is time-sorted, so it preserves insertion order like bigint while still being globally unique. In PostgreSQL 17+, you can also use the built-in uuidv7() function. Never use UUIDs "just in case" — the 2x size increase compared to bigint affects every index, foreign key, and join operation across your entire schema.
When should I use JSONB columns vs separate relational tables?
JSONB is excellent for semi-structured data that varies per row and is primarily read as a whole document — user preferences, API response caches, product attributes that differ by category, event metadata, and feature flags. It is not a substitute for proper relational modeling. Use relational tables when: you need to query, filter, or join on the data frequently; you need foreign key constraints; the structure is consistent across rows; or you need to update individual fields without rewriting the entire document. A common hybrid approach works well: store stable, queryable fields as regular columns and put variable, read-mostly data in a JSONB column. For example, a products table might have name, price, and category_id as regular columns, and an attributes JSONB column for varying properties like material, dimensions, and certifications. Index JSONB with GIN (column jsonb_path_ops) for containment queries (@>) or create expression indexes on specific keys you filter on frequently. Avoid deeply nested JSONB structures — they are hard to query, hard to validate, and the jsonb_set function for partial updates becomes unwieldy beyond two levels.
How do I choose a partitioning strategy for a PostgreSQL table?
Partition a table only when it is large enough that partition pruning provides a meaningful benefit — typically hundreds of millions of rows or when you need efficient bulk deletion (dropping a partition instead of DELETE). PostgreSQL supports three partitioning methods: range, list, and hash. Range partitioning is the most common, used for time-series data (partition by month or quarter) and append-mostly workloads. It enables efficient pruning when queries include a WHERE clause on the partition key, and old data can be detached or dropped without vacuum overhead. List partitioning works for tenant isolation (partition by tenant_id) or categorical data with a small, known set of values. Hash partitioning distributes rows evenly and helps with parallel query execution, but does not support efficient range scans or easy partition management. Choose your partition key based on your most frequent query filter — if 90% of queries filter by created_at, partition by time range. The partition key must be part of the primary key and any unique constraints. Design partitions so that hot queries touch one or two partitions at most. Create partitions ahead of time (automate with pg_partman or a cron job) and monitor for partition bloat. Do not over-partition — hundreds of partitions increase planning time.
Should I use timestamp or timestamptz in PostgreSQL?
Almost always use timestamptz (timestamp with time zone). Despite its name, timestamptz does not store a time zone — it stores a UTC instant. When you insert a value, PostgreSQL converts it from the session time zone to UTC; when you read it, PostgreSQL converts from UTC to the session time zone. This means the same instant is always represented correctly regardless of the client's time zone setting. Plain timestamp (without time zone) stores whatever value you give it with no conversion. This creates subtle bugs: if one application server is configured for UTC and another for US/Eastern, they will insert different UTC instants for the same wall clock time, and your data becomes silently inconsistent. The only valid use case for timestamp without time zone is when you intentionally need a "wall clock" time that should not be converted — for example, storing "the meeting starts at 9:00 AM" as a local time that applies in whatever time zone the viewer is in. For event timestamps, created_at, updated_at, scheduled_at, and any time that represents "when something happened," always use timestamptz. Set your database and application servers to timezone = 'UTC' to avoid surprises.
Related tools
Related resources
Ready to try it?
Use this tool for free — powered by PostgresAI.