hi all,
I second this opnion..
Coming from a web development environment, it could help us to
distribute load on our servers..
regards
Anand
On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 08:21:26AM -0500, Adam Rossi wrote:
>On Wednesday 27 December 2000 08:44 pm, Adam Haberlach wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure you are right. If your data is related enough to be
>> joined, it should be related enough to be in the same database.
>
>I have to disagree. When you start getting into the hundreds of tables, some
>form of partitioning is helpful for any number of reasons - security,
>backups, data ownership, management, etc. I have seen oracle installations
>with hundreds of databases, each with hundreds of tables, and often the users
>would write queries that linked across databases....for example linking from
>the employee table in the HR database to the log tables in an application
>database. If this installation had been "flattened" to one giant database, it
>would have been a nightmare.
>
>I for one really wish that PostgreSQL had this functionality. It is one of
>the biggest things that I miss from other databases.
>
>Regards,
>
>Adam
>
>--
>Adam Rossi
>PlatinumSolutions, Inc.
>adam.rossi@platinumsolutions.com
>http://www.platinumsolutions.com
>P.O. Box 31 Oakton, VA 22124
>PH: 703.471.9793 FAX: 703.471.7140