--As of Saturday, September 10, 2005 1:47 PM -0400, kynn@panix.com is
alleged to have said:
> Why would one bother to create a schema (with "create schema blah
> blah")? Isn't a database enough to keep tables, etc. separate? I can
> see that schemas *may* be useful for complicated designs having a few
> hundred tables (i.e. one in which name collisions could become a
> common problem), but I can't think of any other situation.
--As for the rest, it is mine.
Why run several copies of Postgresql when you don't have to? A schema
allows you to say 'All these tables belong to this project', and have it
clear.
And since you can limit users to one schema (or to just some tables in a
schema!), they don't have to see anything outside it. Then you can
optimize your storage and logic separately, and people don't even need to
know that they all are working with the same database backend.
Daniel T. Staal
---------------------------------------------------------------
This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---------------------------------------------------------------
