Re: Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Lincoln Yeoh
Subject Re: Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases
Date
Msg-id 5.2.1.1.1.20040220004451.0277cca0@mbox.jaring.my
Whole thread Raw
In response to Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases  ("Dirk Olbertz" <olbertz.dirk@gmx.de>)
List pgsql-general
At 01:44 AM 2/19/2004 +0100, Dirk Olbertz wrote:
>I'm currently about to redesign a database which you could compare with a
>database for managing a library. Now this solution will not only manage one
>library, but 100 to 500 of them. Currently, eg. all the data about the
>inventory (books) is held in one table for all the libraries.
>
>Is it useful to spread this to one table for each library, by eg. giving it
>an id as a postfix?

If the libraries don't belong together (administrated and used
independently) then it may be worth splitting them into different databases.

If you are really managing ALL libraries together then keep them in the
same database and even in the same tables.

Of course you have to be careful when sharing tables - if you screw up,
data could be exposed to the wrong parties.


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Ed L."
Date:
Subject: Re: wishlist: dynamic log volume control
Next
From: Nick Barr
Date:
Subject: Re: Inner join question