From: | "Bas Scheffers" <bas(at)scheffers(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | olbertz(dot)dirk(at)gmx(dot)de |
Subject: | Re: Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases |
Date: | 2004-02-19 10:11:25 |
Message-ID: | 1324.217.205.40.94.1077185485.squirrel@io.scheffers.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Is it useful to spread this to one table for each library, by eg. giving
> it an id as a postfix?
That sounds like a real PITA to me. One big database is the way to go,
just put in a branch ID where you need it to seperate the inventories.
This makes things much easier to scale; just put in one row for a new
branch and you are in business, no messy creating of database and
initializing them and linking those few shared tables...
From my experience, there is no such thing as a big table, no matter how
big it gets. The only thing you ever need to worry about is indexes,
because that is how you find things and when using correct index
strategies, Postgres is _fast_.
Bas.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Priem | 2004-02-19 10:13:55 | Re: Grant / Revoke functionality |
Previous Message | Carlos Ojea Castro | 2004-02-19 09:10:36 | Re: Connect to PostgreSQL with kylix3 |