Message-ID: <3d59ad3a34bdcefe97efc5b6655a440021b32e23.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Quesion about querying distributed databases
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: me nefcanto <sn.1361@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>, 
	pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2025 15:34:48 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAEHBEODw8svX557pjB_EL-Os7KWtwi-9Uq=RuCkRKgHVZWw8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CAEHBEOBuoMFWuhHM3L_Zr6o1enELju-Vns6Pknt4TT+6MFQOwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fd47b28c-8f6b-4bfb-a393-160c5c3de8c0@aklaver.com>
	 <CAEHBEOD969YrbPH_z9OEmThWx3-w4sMMaHLhZLOQwqCwE8Y58Q@mail.gmail.com>
	 <caf4e99941b3c83bb9eab91e33b144b826b68f79.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <CAEHBEOBXzkGTqxQSYqmEFN5hbc=zsGWFpU9h8zf7AAPv4VdOWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c9699a6fd331d33864fc269060d8d961f784d827.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <CAEHBEOBNoG8RkKuCcQQWkbYppMLMzA0MXq+s0kZ6wKWgD7+45Q@mail.gmail.com>
	 <099b49ebae94e23f19afdad3f8c9c6e702a3a2d5.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <CAEHBEODw8svX557pjB_EL-Os7KWtwi-9Uq=RuCkRKgHVZWw8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.54.3 (3.54.3-1.fc41) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3d59ad3a34bdcefe97efc5b6655a440021b32e23.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2025-03-05 at 15:45 +0330, me nefcanto wrote:
> Dear Laurenz, the point is that I think if we put all databases into one =
database,
> then we have blocked our growth in the future.

Hard to say.
If you want to shard for horizontal scaling, that usually only works well
if there are few interconnections between the different shards.  If you end
up joining data from different shards, you usually lose.

> A monolith database can be scaled only vertically. We have had huge heada=
ches
> in the past with SQL Server on Windows and a single database.

Without knowing what the headaches were, it is hard to answer something her=
e.

> But when you divide bounded contexts into different databases, then you h=
ave
> the chance to deploy each database on a separate physical machine. That m=
eans
> a lot in terms of performance. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I don't know if you are wrong.  But it seems like it is not working well,
is it?  Perhaps you can explain how splitting up the data might result in
better performance.  Is that just a guess or do you have a reason to think =
so?

> Let's put this physical restriction on ourselves that we have different
> databases. What options do we have?

I don't know.  Based on what you showed: perhaps a complete re-design?

Yours,
Laurenz Albe