Re: Schema partitioning
От | Little, Douglas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Schema partitioning |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8585BA53443004458E0BAA6134C5A7FB6C612817@EGEXCMB01.oww.root.lcl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Schema partitioning (David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com>) |
Список | pgsql-sql |
I generally would separate different apps into different schema. doug -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of David Johnston Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:20 AM To: Charlie Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [SQL] Schema partitioning On Sep 1, 2011, at 14:13, Charlie <scorpdaddy@hotmail.com> wrote: > Could I get feedback from the community on schema partitioning? > > I'm doing maintenance on my ddl and I'm noticing that my tables are all in 1 schema, but they have prefixes on their nameslike table_app1_sometable, table_app1_secondtable, table_app2_anothertable, table_priviledged_restrictedtable1, etc. The table_app1 tables seem to want to go in their own schema "app1", etc, and drop the prefixes. Except they'll stillbe there, as in app1.sometable. > > Is this just style? Or are there concrete benefits to partitioning? > > Mostly style but some ease-of-use when it comes to permissions as well. It's really no different than why you'd use sub-directoriesin your OS instead of putting everything in C/root. It does give you namespaces features as well (I.e., duplicate names but in different contexts). David J. -- Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql
В списке pgsql-sql по дате отправления: