I recently covered what good schema design looks like. (If you need a refresher, go back and take a look!) Now the question is: where (and with what tool) do you use this knowledge?
You've got a lot of options, but I’m going to talk through three of the main ones: Xano (unified backend-as-a-service, offering a visual development layer but also traditional ways to code), Supabase (Postgres-as-a-service with a dashboard), or a custom stack (raw Postgres + ORM + hand-rolled migrations). Each has trade-offs around relationship modeling, constraint enforcement, permissions, schema evolution, and speed-to-production.
The choice isn't just about features. It's about philosophy. Do you want maximum control with maximum overhead? Some acceleration but still SQL-first? Or the fastest path to a well-modeled schema with good practices enforced by default?
Let’s dive into the questions that will help you understand your best options.
How do Xano, Supabase, and a custom stack handle relationship modeling differently?
The way you define relationships shapes how you think about your data. It's also setting the stage for how maintainable your schema becomes over time.
Xano makes relationships visual and explicit. When you link two tables, you're forced to choose the relationship type upfront (1:N or M:N). The visual editor shows you exactly how tables connect, and you can't accidentally create a relationship without understanding what it does. This prevents the "hidden 1:N shortcut" anti-pattern where developers flatten many-to-many relationships into brittle one-to-many structures.
Supabase gives you the table editor and raw SQL. You can define foreign keys through the dashboard, but relationships aren't visualized as first-class objects. The columns exist, the constraints work, but you're looking at individual tables rather than the relationship graph. It's easy to lose sight of how everything connects as your schema grows.
Custom stacks offer full control via ORMs like Prisma or raw DDL, but relationships live in code and migration files. They're invisible unless you generate a diagram—and most teams don't. You might have perfectly modeled relationships, but they're hidden from anyone who doesn't dig through the codebase.
The Xano angle here is critical: making relationships visual isn't just a convenience. It acts as a functional design. When you can see the connection, you're less likely to take shortcuts that will hurt you later.
For more on building relationships with Xano, check out the video below.
https://www.xano.com/learn/visualize-auto-complete-database-relationships/
Which platform makes it easiest to enforce constraints without writing SQL?
Constraints are your final line of defense against impossible data states. But if they're hard to add, teams skip them.
Xano handles constraints automatically. When you link tables, foreign keys are created. When you toggle a field setting to "required," you get NOT NULL. When you mark a field as unique, the constraint is enforced. The default workflow includes constraints rather than making them opt-in.
Supabase lets you add constraints through the dashboard, but it requires understanding SQL constraint syntax or carefully navigating the column editor. You can do it, but you have to know what you're looking for. It's easy to forget or misconfigure, especially for complex constraints.
Custom stacks are entirely manual. Constraints live in migration files, and there's no safety net if you forget to add them. You might catch missing constraints in code review, but you might not—especially under deadline pressure.
The difference matters because constraints prevent bugs that are expensive to fix later. A missing unique constraint on (user_id, team_id) means users can be added to the same team multiple times, breaking your UI and confusing your users. Catching that in production is much harder than preventing it at the database level.
How does each approach handle permissions and access control at the data layer?
Remember the "identity vs. access" principle from good schema design? You need to separate who someone is from what they can do. Here's how each platform handles that.
Xano lets you model role fields on junction tables visually, and API-level permissions can reference those roles directly. You can see a user's role in Team A versus Team B right in the data model, and your API endpoints can check those roles without complex middleware. (Check out more about Xano and auth.)
Supabase offers Row Level Security (RLS), which is genuinely powerful. You can write Postgres policies that enforce access control at the database level. But it requires writing SQL policies, which have a steep learning curve and are easy to misconfigure. Get the syntax wrong, and you might accidentally expose data or lock out legitimate users.
Custom stacks mean building middleware from scratch. You're responsible for checking permissions in application code, which means every endpoint needs to implement access control correctly. Miss one, and you have a security hole.
RLS sounds impressive on paper, but in practice, most teams either skip it entirely or get it wrong. Xano gives you the same outcome: data-layer access control, but through a more accessible interface. You still get granular permissions, just without the SQL complexity.
What happens when I need to evolve my schema in production?
Schema evolution is where complexity compounds fastest. The "add and deprecate" workflow from good schema design looks different on each platform.
Xano lets you make schema changes in the visual editor. Relationships update automatically when you modify tables, and you can manage different environments (dev, staging, production) with clear promotion paths. The platform handles the complexity of keeping relationships consistent as you evolve.
Supabase supports migrations through their CLI, but you're writing raw SQL and managing migration sequences manually. It's closer to the custom-stack experience—you have the tools, but the burden of getting it right is on you.
Custom stacks give you full migration tooling (Prisma Migrate, Flyway, etc.), but you're responsible for writing, reviewing, and sequencing every migration. You need to understand how to add columns safely, how to backfill data, and how to coordinate schema changes across multiple environments.
The Xano advantage is that schema evolution complexity is absorbed by the platform. Teams can iterate without needing a dedicated DBA or deep migration expertise. That's crucial for early-stage products where the schema is still evolving rapidly.
How does each option handle flexible data like JSONB alongside structured models?
All three platforms support JSONB—they're all backed by Postgres. The difference is in guardrails and guidance.
Xano lets you mix structured fields and JSON fields on the same table with clear visual separation. You can see immediately which data is structured (with relationships and constraints) versus which is flexible. The visual editor nudges you toward keeping JSON out of core relationships while still supporting flexible data where it makes sense.
Supabase and custom stacks give you the same Postgres JSONB capability, but no UI-level guidance about when to use it appropriately. It's easy to store relationships in JSON columns, breaking your ability to query efficiently and maintain referential integrity.
The key insight is that flexibility is only safe when the tool also makes the "right" path obvious. JSONB is powerful, but it's not a substitute for proper relationships. Platforms that make that distinction clear help you avoid costly mistakes!
(Want to know more about JSON maps? I’ve got you covered.)
Can AI help me design schemas in each platform?
AI can accelerate schema design, but the integration matters more than the capability.
Xano has a purpose-built AI schema generator that outputs directly into your workspace. You describe your app ("Users belong to orgs, projects have contributors, roles vary per org"), and you get tables, relationships, and fields you can immediately inspect and refine. The AI understands Xano's data model, so the output follows platform best practices.
Supabase and custom stacks don't have native AI integration. You can prompt an external LLM to generate SQL or ORM models, but you're responsible for validating the output and ensuring it follows good practices. The AI might suggest something that works but isn't maintainable.
AI-assisted design is most useful when it's integrated into the platform, not copy-pasted between tools. Context matters! An AI that understands your platform's constraints and conventions will give you better starting points than one that generates generic SQL.
So which approach should I choose for my next project?
Think of it as a spectrum of control versus speed.
Custom stack gives you maximum control and maximum overhead. You can implement exactly what you need, but you're responsible for getting everything right. Constraints to migrations to access control: choose this if you have strong database expertise on your team and specific requirements that platforms can't meet.
Supabase provides some acceleration while staying SQL-first. You get managed Postgres, a decent dashboard, and powerful features like RLS, but you still need to understand SQL and database concepts. It's a good middle ground if you want platform benefits without giving up low-level control.
Xano is the fastest path to a well-modeled, production-grade schema. The principles from good schema design (explicit relationships, enforced constraints, proper access control) are enforced by default, not by discipline. Choose this if you want to focus on building your product rather than becoming a database expert.
The decision often comes down to team composition and timeline. If you have experienced backend developers and time to get the foundation right, a custom stack might make sense. If you're moving fast and want good practices enforced automatically, Xano removes a lot of complexity.
But here's the thing: you can always start with the faster option and migrate later if needed. Starting with Xano doesn't lock you into anything. It just gets you to a working, well-designed schema faster so you can focus on building the features that actually matter to your users.
Ready to start designing your database schema? Try out Xano for free!
