Hello all,
I think you are both right. The one says that tables which are related
enough to be joined should stay in one database and the other says that
it could be necessary for many reasons to hold the tables in different
databases. Even if I never was in need to join tables from different
databases (in this point I agree with Adam Haberlach), we have many
applications which use separate databases for lookup-queries or for the
sake of synchronization or replication of databases, therefore I
absolutely agree with Adam Rossi.
In fact, I also would be very content if PostgreSQL would be enabled to
work with different databases (perhaps in some future release?).
Best regards, Jens
Adam Rossi wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 27 December 2000 08:44 pm, Adam Haberlach wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty sure you are right. If your data is related enough to be
> > joined, it should be related enough to be in the same database.
>
> I have to disagree. When you start getting into the hundreds of tables, some
> form of partitioning is helpful for any number of reasons - security,
> backups, data ownership, management, etc. I have seen oracle installations
> with hundreds of databases, each with hundreds of tables, and often the users
> would write queries that linked across databases....for example linking from
> the employee table in the HR database to the log tables in an application
> database. If this installation had been "flattened" to one giant database, it
> would have been a nightmare.
>
> I for one really wish that PostgreSQL had this functionality. It is one of
> the biggest things that I miss from other databases.
> [...]
=============================================
Jens Hartwig
---------------------------------------------
debis Systemhaus GEI mbH
10875 Berlin
Tel. : +49 (0)30 2554-3282
Fax : +49 (0)30 2554-3187
Mobil : +49 (0)170 167-2648
E-Mail : jhartwig@debis.com
=============================================
