X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF699FB3A8 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 43801-08 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:21 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.224]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CADB9FB2D5 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id t13so491009wxc for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:01:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-virus-scanned; b=tQiEpGMq5eAEMuimUvnf9HgSXkPJx5Pq5tkyK9R5IHgArspy9gZVBrnfRV6HZ8zPQTOdcWDYGJTHnFkI4f0pgj6akQ6Cvm7l1h9/ksmizFaDhkTEvln8nkcOLF0jPnWViztWSp3HMWSWDemaMvLnd2nWQUiOTysn1BtxCQZv1JM= Received: by 10.70.52.5 with SMTP id z5mr11517048wxz; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strongwill.g2ctech ( [200.139.119.40]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id h11sm1203046wxd.2006.08.15.05.01.17; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:01:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strongwill.g2ctech (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21ADBAC2C; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:14 -0300 (BRT) Received: from strongwill.g2ctech ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (strongwill.g2ctech [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 02021-02-7; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:14 -0300 (BRT) Received: from jupiter.g2ctech (unknown [10.0.0.240]) by strongwill.g2ctech (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02928B621F; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:14 -0300 (BRT) Received: by jupiter.g2ctech (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E698CF9A94; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:03 -0300 (BRT) From: Jorge Godoy To: Michael Fuhr Cc: Andrew Sullivan , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Multiple DB join In-Reply-To: <20060815113832.GA99592@winnie.fuhr.org> (Michael Fuhr's message of "Tue, 15 Aug 2006 05:38:32 -0600") References: <44E0EA72.2090505@indiana.edu> <20060815103624.GA21634@phlogiston.dyndns.org> <20060815113832.GA99592@winnie.fuhr.org> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:03 -0300 Message-ID: <87fyfy8ayo.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at g2ctech.com X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.199 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/104 X-Sequence-Number: 26062 Michael Fuhr writes: > 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? I can think that spreading processing requirements should be one. And distributing load another one. Disk space can be solved with new disks and tablespaces, but we can't yet distribute the load through several servers without partitioning. -- Jorge Godoy