| From: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dirk Olbertz" <olbertz(dot)dirk(at)gmx(dot)de>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases |
| Date: | 2004-02-19 16:48:40 |
| Message-ID: | 5.2.1.1.1.20040220004451.0277cca0@mbox.jaring.my |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
At 01:44 AM 2/19/2004 +0100, Dirk Olbertz wrote:
>I'm currently about to redesign a database which you could compare with a
>database for managing a library. Now this solution will not only manage one
>library, but 100 to 500 of them. Currently, eg. all the data about the
>inventory (books) is held in one table for all the libraries.
>
>Is it useful to spread this to one table for each library, by eg. giving it
>an id as a postfix?
If the libraries don't belong together (administrated and used
independently) then it may be worth splitting them into different databases.
If you are really managing ALL libraries together then keep them in the
same database and even in the same tables.
Of course you have to be careful when sharing tables - if you screw up,
data could be exposed to the wrong parties.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nick Barr | 2004-02-19 16:49:41 | Re: Inner join question |
| Previous Message | Ed L. | 2004-02-19 16:45:19 | Re: wishlist: dynamic log volume control |