From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | me nefcanto <sn(dot)1361(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Quesion about querying distributed databases |
Date: | 2025-03-05 11:48:23 |
Message-ID: | 099b49ebae94e23f19afdad3f8c9c6e702a3a2d5.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2025-03-05 at 14:18 +0330, me nefcanto wrote:
> That means a solid monolith database. We lose many goodies with that.
> As a real-world example, right now we can import a single database
> from the production to the development to test and troubleshoot data.
Well, can't you import a single schema then?
> What if we host all databases on the same server and use FDW. What
> happens in that case? Does it return 100 thousand records and join
> in the memory?
It will do just the same thing. The performance could be better
because of the reduced latency.
> Because in SQL Server, when you perform a cross-database query
> (not cross-server) the performance is extremely good, proving that
> it does not return 100 thousand ItemId from Taxonomy.ItemCategories
> to join with ProductId.
>
> Is that the same case with Postgres too, If databases are located
> on one server?
No, you cannot perform cross-database queries without a foreign
data wrapper. I don't see a reason why the statement shouldn't
perform as well as in SQL Server if you use schemas instead of
databases.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | me nefcanto | 2025-03-05 12:15:08 | Re: Quesion about querying distributed databases |
Previous Message | me nefcanto | 2025-03-05 10:48:20 | Re: Quesion about querying distributed databases |