Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 03:31:55PM -0700, david(at)lang(dot)hm wrote:
> various people (not database experts) are pushing to install Oracle
> cluster so that they can move all of these to one table with a customerID
> column.

Well, you will always have to deal with the sort of people who will
base their technical prescriptions on the shiny ads they read in
SuperGlobalNetworkedExecutiveGoFast, or whatever rag they're reading
these days. I usually encourage such people actually to perform the
analysis of the license, salary, contingency, and migrations costs
(and do a similar analysis myself, actually, so when they have
overlooked the 30 things that individually cost $1million a piece, I
can point them out). More than one jaw has had to be picked up off
the floor when presented with the bill for RAC. Frequently, people
discover that it is a good way to turn your tidy money-making
enterprise into a giant money hole that produces a sucking sound on
the other end of which is Oracle Corporation.

All of that aside, I have pretty severe doubts that RAC would be a
win for you. A big honkin' single database in Postgres ought to be
able to do this too, if you throw enough hardware money at it. But
it seems a waste to re-implement something that's already apparently
working for you in favour of something more expensive that you don't
seem to need.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir?
--attr. John Maynard Keynes