Re: store different tables in different locations - Mailing list pgsql-admin

Julius Tuskenis wrote:
> Hello,
> 1) To store tables in different locations use different tablespaces, witch
> can be stored in different locations in your hard drive. Same goes for the
> databases.

Thanks a lot and it would be helpful. :)
 I am a newbie to postgresql and maybe I should read the manuual first.

> 2)
> a) Postgresql is fine data base management system, so I see no reasons why
> you should not use it.

we use postgresql to store  so little data as only 600MB or so, while for
this,
we have to do  consume some efforts on managing and maintaining the
database.  I am not sure whether it is a good and wise design.
Is there any more wiser design for this case?

> b) I'm not sure I fully understand you on that one. You want to estimate,
> that after inserting some record into your database it will reach your
> maximum size? Any way I don't know how to do this...

For some reason the size of database is asked to restrict to 900MB.
So I have to make efforts to make sure that its size is less than 900MB.
Maybe I should not do it. :)

 Thanks a lot
Duan

> Duan Ligong rašė:
>> Hi, all
>>
>> I have several questions to bother you. :)
>>
>> 1 For postgresql, is it POSSIBLE to store different tables in different
>> locations where we specify? For one postgresql management process,
>> is it POSSIBLE to store different database in differentlocations
>> where we specify?
>>
>> 2 Is it appropriate to use Postgresql to store data for the following
>> situation:
>> The whole system consists of about 400 machines and I have to develop a
>> program collecting the information about capacity and performance and
>> networt setting and so on of each machines and displaying them for the
>> administrators and some related guys. Moreover, I have to store some
>> history data to display graphes
>> and curvers. My design is as follows: one daemon process running on each
>> machine to collect data and send it to the database which is in one
>> specified machine.
>> The bad thing is that the size of database is asked to be resricted in
>> 900MB for some reasons.
>> The questions are:
>> (a) Is it appropriate to use postgresql database in this case? If not,
>> any sugguestion will be appreciated.
>>     In fact considered using common file to store data. but you know,
>> it is possible that daemon processes on other 399 machines send data
>> simultaneously, ...
>>
>> (b) It seems hard to estimate the maximum size of the database, because
>> frequently updating and inserting opreations will cause unused
>> space not acclaiming in time and we have to routinely vaccum.
>> Is there any good and easy, :) way to estimate the maximum size of
>> postgresql database accurately?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Duan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Duan Ligong
>> TEL   :  0561-75-1925-6201
>>           800-81-569-6201
>> E-Mail : l-duan@zd.cnes.jp.nec.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Julius Tuskenis
> Programuotojas
> UAB nSoft
> mob. +37068233050
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>