| From: | "Guy Rouillier" <guyr(at)masergy(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioning Postgresql |
| Date: | 2005-01-26 23:24:32 |
| Message-ID: | CC1CF380F4D70844B01D45982E671B2348E570@mtxexch01.add0.masergy.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
phil campaigne wrote:
>
> Does this also mean that you cannot physically split a database over
> multiple physical servers?
> Phil
Physically, yes, logically no. Suppose, for example, you have two
servers A and B, both running PostgreSQL with corresponding databases
dbA and dbB. Depending on what you are trying to accomplish, you can
put table 1 in dbA and table2 in dbB. The application users don't know
and don't care where the tables reside. If you want to hide this from
the programmers as well, you can hide that with a very thin access
layer. Finally, if you need to join the two tables, you can even do
that with the dblink add-on.
Finally, if you are using Java, ObjectWeb has a RAIDb driver that can
transparently distribute databases over a cluster of servers. See
http://c-jdbc.objectweb.org/.
--
Guy Rouillier
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PFC | 2005-01-26 23:35:31 | Re: on update / on delete performance of foreign keys |
| Previous Message | Vladimir S. Petukhov | 2005-01-26 22:33:26 | Re: Lower case |