hi all, I second this opnion.. Coming from a web development environment, it could help us to distribute load on our servers.. regards Anand On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 08:21:26AM -0500, Adam Rossi wrote: >On Wednesday 27 December 2000 08:44 pm, Adam Haberlach wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure you are right. If your data is related enough to be >> joined, it should be related enough to be in the same database. > >I have to disagree. When you start getting into the hundreds of tables, some >form of partitioning is helpful for any number of reasons - security, >backups, data ownership, management, etc. I have seen oracle installations >with hundreds of databases, each with hundreds of tables, and often the users >would write queries that linked across databases....for example linking from >the employee table in the HR database to the log tables in an application >database. If this installation had been "flattened" to one giant database, it >would have been a nightmare. > >I for one really wish that PostgreSQL had this functionality. It is one of >the biggest things that I miss from other databases. > >Regards, > >Adam > >-- >Adam Rossi >PlatinumSolutions, Inc. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.platinumsolutions.com >P.O. Box 31 Oakton, VA 22124 >PH: 703.471.9793 FAX: 703.471.7140
