DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:cc:subject:references
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=UP89vwL9PgNM25B8pwbjohX1K6pA1dRRTXA4xJKLLR9uAsaja/5e/EWcgLTn9EhZf3
	gDGW4leAqvhyl7KPIawxAUdeFFS6/F1KkauQackCmGwIaMcbGt5gILTqagAQtQsLJphB
	doOxadjJRWYzpxSWE0oI+kPYiVXMnVHPi98MM=
Message-ID: <4A3A5DF4.1090409@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:32:04 -0600
From: Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 2 tables or two db?
References: <1245338535.15412.4.camel@ivangeo>
In-Reply-To: <1245338535.15412.4.camel@ivangeo>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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).