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 14:34:48 |
Message-ID: | 3d59ad3a34bdcefe97efc5b6655a440021b32e23.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 2025-03-05 at 15:45 +0330, me nefcanto wrote:
> Dear Laurenz, the point is that I think if we put all databases into one database,
> then we have blocked our growth in the future.
Hard to say.
If you want to shard for horizontal scaling, that usually only works well
if there are few interconnections between the different shards. If you end
up joining data from different shards, you usually lose.
> A monolith database can be scaled only vertically. We have had huge headaches
> in the past with SQL Server on Windows and a single database.
Without knowing what the headaches were, it is hard to answer something here.
> But when you divide bounded contexts into different databases, then you have
> the chance to deploy each database on a separate physical machine. That means
> a lot in terms of performance. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I don't know if you are wrong. But it seems like it is not working well,
is it? Perhaps you can explain how splitting up the data might result in
better performance. Is that just a guess or do you have a reason to think so?
> Let's put this physical restriction on ourselves that we have different
> databases. What options do we have?
I don't know. Based on what you showed: perhaps a complete re-design?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2025-03-05 15:21:27 | Re: Quesion about querying distributed databases |
Previous Message | me nefcanto | 2025-03-05 12:15:08 | Re: Quesion about querying distributed databases |