From: Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>
To: chester c young <chestercyoung@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: partitions versus databases
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:13:11 +0800
Message-ID: <4EE160A7.3070106@ringerc.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1323354369.98656.YahooMailClassic@web161406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1323354369.98656.YahooMailClassic@web161406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
On 12/08/2011 10:26 PM, chester c young wrote:
> have an db with about 15 tables that will handle many companies. no data overlap between companies. is it more efficient run-time to use one database and index each row by company id, and one database and partition each table by company id, or to create a database for each company?
>
> it is a web-based app using persistent connections. no copying.
>
If you post a question on Stack Overflow and on the mailing list, please
link to your stack overflow question from your mailing list post!
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8432636/in-postgresql-are-partitions-or-multiple-databases-more-e...
That'll help avoid duplication of effort, and make it easier for people
searching for similar topics later to find out more.
--
Craig Ringer
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: ringerc@ringerc.id.au, chestercyoung@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: partitions versus databases
In-Reply-To: <4EE160A7.3070106@ringerc.id.au>
* 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