Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases
От | Dirk Olbertz |
---|---|
Тема | Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases |
Дата | |
Msg-id | LEEOIKFFENKCDCEAJEOBOEHKCHAA.olbertz.dirk@gmx.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases
Re: Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases Re: Big Tables vs. many Tables vs. many Databases |
Список | pgsql-general |
Hi there, I'm currently about to redesign a database which you could compare with a database for managing a library. Now this solution will not only manage one library, but 100 to 500 of them. Currently, eg. all the data about the inventory (books) is held in one table for all the libraries. Is it useful to spread this to one table for each library, by eg. giving it an id as a postfix? For one library, we currently need about 150 tables, so that would easily increase a lot if there would be a set of this tables for each library. On the other hand, there are only a very few tables (2-5), which are used by all libraries. All the rest does not interact with each other - and don't think about exchanging books betweens libs, as the library is only an example... One other solution would be to make one database for each library. What do you think of that? Does PostgreSQL has any problems with that much tables? Would it better to spread the data by databases? Thanks for your opinions, Dirk
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: