Re: Changing the concept of a DATABASE
От | Susanne Ebrecht |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Changing the concept of a DATABASE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4FBE01CA.1080501@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Changing the concept of a DATABASE ("Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: Changing the concept of a DATABASE
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Am 22.05.2012 15:27, schrieb Albe Laurenz: > If you need different applications to routinely access each other's > tables, why not assign them to different schemas in one database? I just saw another use case here. There are lots of offices / departments creating maps. Topography maps, pipeline maps, nature conservancy (e.g. where are the nests from endangered birds?), mineral resources, wire maps, street maps, bicycle / jogging maps, tourists maps, tree maps, cadastral land register, and so on. All this departments have their own databases for their own maps. They only map their own stuff. Towns / states / regions have a department where all these maps get collected. You can go to your town and ask for weird maps today - e.g. a map with all jogging routes and waste water pipes but without autobahns. You could say that you have one database per layer. As I said - I saw this construction in real world outside. I am pretty sure that other states maybe have other solutions but the described solution exist. Susanne -- Dipl. Inf. Susanne Ebrecht - 2ndQuadrant PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: