Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
Date
Msg-id 1166740895.5594.39.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?  (Benjamin Smith <lists@benjamindsmith.com>)
Responses Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
List pgsql-general
> > > 3) Put each customer in their own schema/namespace which resides within
> > > its own table space.
> > >
> > > Then you can move customers wherever you need in terms of IO.
>
> How is that functionally different than using a separate database? What's the
> advantage here? I don't *need* to restrict myself to one database, and doing
> this does require that I revisit 100% of the SQL queries to make sure that
> I'm referencing the right schema.
>
> This solution seems to have the same problems as using dynamic tablenames.

Not really. You should read up on schemas and how they work. Plus the
addition of schemas and table spaces means you can infinite scaling
within the confines of your hardware itself.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate




pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Benjamin Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
Next
From: Tomasz Ostrowski
Date:
Subject: Re: Password strength requirements