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

Re: [GENERAL] One database vs. hundreds?

From: btober(at)ct(dot)metrocast(dot)net
To: Kamil Srot <kamil(dot)srot(at)nlogy(dot)com>
Cc: Kynn Jones <kynnjo(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] One database vs. hundreds?
Date: 2007-08-28 12:57:11
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
(On the GENERAL list) Kamil Srot wrote:
> Kynn Jones wrote:
>> I'm hoping to get some advice on a design question ...
> ...we use pgsql partitioning for other reasons
> and it has some of the features you want (data separation, query 
> performance, ...).
> It can be worth reading: 

I'm not sure the tip is really what the OP is going to need -- I think 
he has a different problem in mind than that addresses -- but after a 
quick R of TFM, all I can say is HOLY CR** THAT IS COOL! Postrgresql was 
amazing when I first started using it at 7.2, and I'm continually 
astounded by learning new features and techniques made available by the 
continuing work of the development team.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-08-28 14:28:24
Subject: Re: Testing the other tsearch dictionaries
Previous:From: Kevin KempterDate: 2007-08-28 12:47:29
Subject: Re: One database vs. hundreds?

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-08-28 12:58:44
Subject: Re: INSERT doc discrepancy
Previous:From: Josh TrutwinDate: 2007-08-28 12:53:13
Subject: Indexing Foreign Key Columns

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group