Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263E49FB8BD for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:32:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25125-05 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:32:18 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from main2.mycybernet.net (main2.mycybernet.net [209.222.63.140]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283939FB50F for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 16:32:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 227-54-222-209.mycybernet.net ([209.222.54.227] helo=phlogiston.dydns.org) by main2.mycybernet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Hw1Ev-0008Nf-5w for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:32:17 -0400 Received: by phlogiston.dydns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D32213F9E; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:32:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 15:32:11 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? Message-ID: <20070606193211.GD11545@phlogiston.dyndns.org> References: <1180980943.31471.322.camel@archimedes> <46645DD9.7030805@soliantconsulting.com> <877iqjmro5.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <46647427.4030103@g2switchworks.com> <466593E5.1010904@g2switchworks.com> <87sl96z0wf.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <10525.1181080765@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/103 X-Sequence-Number: 25136 On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 03:31:55PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: > various people (not database experts) are pushing to install Oracle > cluster so that they can move all of these to one table with a customerID > column. Well, you will always have to deal with the sort of people who will base their technical prescriptions on the shiny ads they read in SuperGlobalNetworkedExecutiveGoFast, or whatever rag they're reading these days. I usually encourage such people actually to perform the analysis of the license, salary, contingency, and migrations costs (and do a similar analysis myself, actually, so when they have overlooked the 30 things that individually cost $1million a piece, I can point them out). More than one jaw has had to be picked up off the floor when presented with the bill for RAC. Frequently, people discover that it is a good way to turn your tidy money-making enterprise into a giant money hole that produces a sucking sound on the other end of which is Oracle Corporation. All of that aside, I have pretty severe doubts that RAC would be a win for you. A big honkin' single database in Postgres ought to be able to do this too, if you throw enough hardware money at it. But it seems a waste to re-implement something that's already apparently working for you in favour of something more expensive that you don't seem to need. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir? --attr. John Maynard Keynes