Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Database organization questions

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: matty jones <urlugal(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Database organization questions
Date: 2011-06-27 15:18:58
Message-ID: BANLkTin0YucQ83bRc+Z4bhvuToJ0XkobHA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 3:17 PM, matty jones <urlugal(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> What I think I am going to do is design the table structure for my db and
> then use a trigger to update the otrs tables(kept separate) when necessary.
>  If I mixed the tables then I could potentially run into issues when I do an
> upgrade of otrs or if I need to change something on my end down the line.
>  Keeping them separate seems to make more sense to me right now.

Keeping them separate makes lots of sense. Modularity is an important
design pattern for enterprise data and the services around them.

Technically, there are many ways to implement separation. Triggers
work, but it would be a design decision that forces you to keep those
two services on the same system.

I would recommend using a technology that allows more flexibility for
future placement of databases. That would be a generalised replication
solution, though you might generalise further and adopt an ETL or real
time integration tool.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: Carlos BrooksDate: 2011-06-28 16:13:12
Subject: Error 1053
Previous:From: matty jonesDate: 2011-06-27 14:17:05
Subject: Re: Database organization questions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group