From: | David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Charlie <scorpdaddy(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Schema partitioning |
Date: | 2011-09-02 13:20:03 |
Message-ID: | F294EC88-9E96-4FAB-81C1-0F24B235E641@yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Sep 1, 2011, at 14:13, Charlie <scorpdaddy(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Could I get feedback from the community on schema partitioning?
>
> I'm doing maintenance on my ddl and I'm noticing that my tables are all in 1 schema, but they have prefixes on their names like table_app1_sometable, table_app1_secondtable, table_app2_anothertable, table_priviledged_restrictedtable1, etc. The table_app1 tables seem to want to go in their own schema "app1", etc, and drop the prefixes. Except they'll still be there, as in app1.sometable.
>
> Is this just style? Or are there concrete benefits to partitioning?
>
>
Mostly style but some ease-of-use when it comes to permissions as well. It's really no different than why you'd use sub-directories in your OS instead of putting everything in C/root.
It does give you namespaces features as well (I.e., duplicate names but in different contexts).
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Little, Douglas | 2011-09-02 13:22:33 | Re: Schema partitioning |
Previous Message | Charlie | 2011-09-01 18:13:26 | Schema partitioning |