Thread: Schema partitioning
Could I get feedback from the community on schema partitioning?
I'm doing maintenance on my ddl and I'm noticing that my tables are all in 1 schema, but they have prefixes on their names like table_app1_sometable, table_app1_secondtable, table_app2_anothertable, table_priviledged_restrictedtable1, etc. The table_app1 tables seem to want to go in their own schema "app1", etc, and drop the prefixes. Except they'll still be there, as in app1.sometable.
Is this just style? Or are there concrete benefits to partitioning?
I'm doing maintenance on my ddl and I'm noticing that my tables are all in 1 schema, but they have prefixes on their names like table_app1_sometable, table_app1_secondtable, table_app2_anothertable, table_priviledged_restrictedtable1, etc. The table_app1 tables seem to want to go in their own schema "app1", etc, and drop the prefixes. Except they'll still be there, as in app1.sometable.
Is this just style? Or are there concrete benefits to partitioning?
On Sep 1, 2011, at 14:13, Charlie <scorpdaddy@hotmail.com> wrote: > Could I get feedback from the community on schema partitioning? > > I'm doing maintenance on my ddl and I'm noticing that my tables are all in 1 schema, but they have prefixes on their nameslike table_app1_sometable, table_app1_secondtable, table_app2_anothertable, table_priviledged_restrictedtable1, etc. The table_app1 tables seem to want to go in their own schema "app1", etc, and drop the prefixes. Except they'll stillbe there, as in app1.sometable. > > Is this just style? Or are there concrete benefits to partitioning? > > Mostly style but some ease-of-use when it comes to permissions as well. It's really no different than why you'd use sub-directoriesin your OS instead of putting everything in C/root. It does give you namespaces features as well (I.e., duplicate names but in different contexts). David J.
I generally would separate different apps into different schema. doug -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David Johnston Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:20 AM To: Charlie Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [SQL] Schema partitioning On Sep 1, 2011, at 14:13, Charlie <scorpdaddy@hotmail.com> wrote: > Could I get feedback from the community on schema partitioning? > > I'm doing maintenance on my ddl and I'm noticing that my tables are all in 1 schema, but they have prefixes on their nameslike table_app1_sometable, table_app1_secondtable, table_app2_anothertable, table_priviledged_restrictedtable1, etc. The table_app1 tables seem to want to go in their own schema "app1", etc, and drop the prefixes. Except they'll stillbe there, as in app1.sometable. > > Is this just style? Or are there concrete benefits to partitioning? > > Mostly style but some ease-of-use when it comes to permissions as well. It's really no different than why you'd use sub-directoriesin your OS instead of putting everything in C/root. It does give you namespaces features as well (I.e., duplicate names but in different contexts). David J. -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql