From: David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com>
To: Charlie <scorpdaddy@hotmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Schema partitioning
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 09:20:03 -0400
Message-ID: <F294EC88-9E96-4FAB-81C1-0F24B235E641@yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BLU0-SMTP160E0FDF5187168D1BA6EC2CE190@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU0-SMTP160E0FDF5187168D1BA6EC2CE190@phx.gbl>
On Sep 1, 2011, at 14:13, Charlie <scorpdaddy@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Could I get feedback from the community on schema partitioning?
>
> I'm doing maintenance on my ddl and I'm noticing that my tables are all in 1 schema, but they have prefixes on their names like table_app1_sometable, table_app1_secondtable, table_app2_anothertable, table_priviledged_restrictedtable1, etc. The table_app1 tables seem to want to go in their own schema "app1", etc, and drop the prefixes. Except they'll still be there, as in app1.sometable.
>
> Is this just style? Or are there concrete benefits to partitioning?
>
>
Mostly style but some ease-of-use when it comes to permissions as well. It's really no different than why you'd use sub-directories in your OS instead of putting everything in C/root.
It does give you namespaces features as well (I.e., duplicate names but in different contexts).
David J.
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: polobo@yahoo.com, scorpdaddy@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Schema partitioning
In-Reply-To: <F294EC88-9E96-4FAB-81C1-0F24B235E641@yahoo.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