From: Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 2 tables or two db?
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:32:04 -0600
Message-ID: <4A3A5DF4.1090409@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1245338535.15412.4.camel@ivangeo>
References: <1245338535.15412.4.camel@ivangeo>
ivan marchesini wrote:
> Dear postgres users,
>
> Suppose I have two tables of data.
>
> suppose the two table are really similar in dimensions
>
> suppose they will receive the same number and type of queries.
>
> in tems of performance (velocity of answer) it is better to place the
> two tables in the same db or into two different db?
>
> may be it is a stupid question, but....
>
> many many thanks...
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>
>
My guess is that only physical separation will have any positive impact
otherwise the two datasets are competing for the same resources. At
least separate discs, controllers to avoid disc contention. Separate
postgres instances to allow separate caches (in affect separate memory).
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: robjsargent@gmail.com
Subject: Re: 2 tables or two db?
In-Reply-To: <4A3A5DF4.1090409@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox