Re: Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases

From: "Bas Scheffers" <bas(at)scheffers(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: olbertz(dot)dirk(at)gmx(dot)de
Subject: Re: Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases
Date: 2004-02-19 10:11:25
Message-ID: 1324.217.205.40.94.1077185485.squirrel@io.scheffers.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> Is it useful to spread this to one table for each library, by eg. giving
> it an id as a postfix?
That sounds like a real PITA to me. One big database is the way to go,
just put in a branch ID where you need it to seperate the inventories.
This makes things much easier to scale; just put in one row for a new
branch and you are in business, no messy creating of database and
initializing them and linking those few shared tables...

From my experience, there is no such thing as a big table, no matter how
big it gets. The only thing you ever need to worry about is indexes,
because that is how you find things and when using correct index
strategies, Postgres is _fast_.

Bas.

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Priem 2004-02-19 10:13:55 Re: Grant / Revoke functionality
Previous Message Carlos Ojea Castro 2004-02-19 09:10:36 Re: Connect to PostgreSQL with kylix3