X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C7D9FB3A4 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:39:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49274-07 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:38:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from tigger.fuhr.org (tigger.fuhr.org [63.214.45.158]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 897409FB2D5 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:38:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (winnie.fuhr.org [10.1.0.1]) by tigger.fuhr.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k7FBcXMq019157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:38:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7FBcXZL099736; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:38:33 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org) Received: (from mfuhr@localhost) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k7FBcWhj099735; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:38:33 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from mfuhr) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:38:32 -0600 From: Michael Fuhr To: Andrew Sullivan Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Multiple DB join Message-ID: <20060815113832.GA99592@winnie.fuhr.org> References: <44E0EA72.2090505@indiana.edu> <20060815103624.GA21634@phlogiston.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060815103624.GA21634@phlogiston.dyndns.org> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200608/103 X-Sequence-Number: 26061 On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 06:36:24AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 05:26:10PM -0400, Sumeet Ambre wrote: > > I have a database which consists of 20 million records and I've split up > > the db into 6-7 dbs. > > You can do this (as someone suggested with dblink), but I'm wondering > why the split? 20 million records isn't very big. And why multiple databases instead of multiple schemas within the same database? Or even all data in the same schema? Is there a reason for the segregation? -- Michael Fuhr