Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/21/06 17:15, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 16:54 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 12/21/06 16:41, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
[snip]
>>>>> This solution seems to have the same problems as using dynamic tablenames.
>>>> Not really. You should read up on schemas and how they work. Plus the
>>>> addition of schemas and table spaces means you can infinite scaling
>>>> within the confines of your hardware itself.
> "infinite scaling within the confines of your hardware"!
>
> How is that accomplished?
>
>> Well with a tablespace, you can place the entire schema, easily on its
>> own array. Say a nice little HP-MSA30. If that array gets tired you can
>> add another array, and move a couple of schemas off to another array.
>
>> Also if you spec the hardware correctly, you can get up to a total of 16
>> cores without any significant cost... just add cpus as needed.
>
>> PostgreSQL 8.1 does extremely well up to 8 cpus (8 cores). 8.2 is said
>> to perform better on > 8 cores, but I have not tested it.

Sure, but *infinite*? Or were you exercising hyperbole?

With One Big Database, you can get a SAN and attach a whole lot of
disk space, but your mobo will only accept a certain number of DIMMs
and processors of certain designs. And when your growing mega
database maxes out your h/w, you're stuck.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFixgDS9HxQb37XmcRAm5TAKCVGpWvb9SKB+Kk44J/88WTEhnYoQCeKgcd
BhorUjImDd+SldObdWuhFjw=
=lSm5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----