Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Schemas vs. Multiple Databases
От | John R Pierce |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Schemas vs. Multiple Databases |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 016439c9-8017-e319-bd2f-893b1a8cd091@hogranch.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [GENERAL] Multiple Schemas vs. Multiple Databases ("Igal @ Lucee.org" <igal@lucee.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Schemas vs. Multiple Databases
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 10/13/2017 12:29 PM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote: > > I have read quite a few articles about multiple schemas vs. multiple > databases, but they are all very generic so I wanted to ask here for a > specific use case: > > I am migrating a Web Application from MS SQL Server to PostgreSQL. > For the sake of easier maintenance, on SQL Server I have two separate > databases: > > 1) Primary database containing the data for the application > > 2) Secondary database containing "transient" data, e.g. logging of > different activities on the website in order to generate statistics etc. > > Both databases belong to the same application with the same roles and > permissions. > > The secondary database grows much faster, but the data in it is not > mission-critical , and so the data is aggregated daily and the > summaries are posted to the primary database, because only the > aggregates are important here. > > To keep the database sizes from growing too large, I periodically > delete old data from the secondary database since the data becomes > obsolete after a certain period of time. > > At first I thought of doing the same in Postgres, but now it seems > like the better way to go would be to keep one database with two > schemas: primary and transient. > > The main things that I need to do is: > > a) Be able to backup/restore each "part" separately. Looks like > pg_dump allows that for schemas via the --schema=schema argument. > > b) Be able to query aggregates from the secondary "part" and store > the results in the primary one, which also seems easier with multiple > schemas than multiple databases. > > Am I right to think that two schemas are better in this use case or am > I missing something important? > generally, yeah, unless you eventually decide to split off the two databases onto separate servers for performance reasons. Of course, to access the 'other' database, you'd need to use postgres_fdw or dblink. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: