Well Jt1 is prod and jt2 is dev Before someone pushes to prod it does work in dev. The jdbc connection routes to jt2. In the mean time it wad needed that some tables in prod are synced at all times from dev. Hence the view/fdw. What I meant by connections was more to say the type of load or users doing something in each schema. So my questions still remain
Sent from my iPhone > On May 9, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> wrote: > >> On 05/09/2017 02:36 PM, Armand Pirvu (home) wrote: >> Hi >> I have two schemas jt1, and jt2 in the same db >> In both I have the same table tbl3 >> The idea is to keep in sync jt1.tbl3 from jt2.tbl3 each time I have an >> insert/update/delete on jt2.tbl3 >> So I was thinking about the following cases to avoid replication >> 1) in jt2 rather than have the tbl3 table, have a view named tbl3 based on >> jt1.tbl3 >> 2) use the postgtres fdw and in jt2 have a foreign table tbl3 to jt1.tbl3 > > Why? > If it is all on the same database why not just use jt1.tbl3? > >> create table tbl3 (col1 integer, col2 integer, col3 integer, primary key >> (col1)); >> insert into tbl3 >> select generate_series(1, 10000000), 111,222; >> Questions: >> q1 - Any issues with this logic ? Or any other ways to do this better ? jt2 >> usage in terms of concurrent users and so on is by far much less than jt1, >> at least one order of magnitude less > > Connections are to the database not the schema. > >> q2 - query performance (select * from tbl3 where col1=499123; >> ) . While using views it is clear cut the output of explain, on fdw not so >> much >> explain analyze select * from jt2.tbl3 where col1=874433; >> QUERY PLAN >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Foreign Scan on tbl3 (cost=100.00..138.66 rows=11 width=12) (actual >> time=0.204..0.205 rows=1 loops=1) >> Planning time: 0.043 ms >> Execution time: 0.374 ms >> (3 rows) >> explain analyze select * from jt1.tbl3 where col1=874433; >> QUERY PLAN >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Index Scan using tbl3_pkey on tbl3 (cost=0.43..8.45 rows=1 width=12) >> (actual time=0.010..0.011 rows=1 loops=1) >> Index Cond: (col1 = 874433) >> Planning time: 0.035 ms >> Execution time: 0.021 ms >> (4 rows) >> Do I understand correctly that the output of (explain analyze select * from >> jt2.tbl3 where col1=874433) is in essence (for all practical purposes) the >> same as the one from (explain analyze select * from jt1.tbl3 where >> col1=874433;) and not a sequential scan like the following ? >> explain analyze select * from jt1.tbl3 where col2=874433; >> QUERY PLAN >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Seq Scan on tbl3 (cost=0.00..179053.25 rows=1 width=12) (actual >> time=498.020..498.020 rows=0 loops=1) >> Filter: (col2 = 874433) >> Rows Removed by Filter: 9999998 >> Planning time: 0.030 ms >> Execution time: 498.034 ms >> (5 rows) >> Thanks >> Armand > > > -- > Adrian Klaver > adrian.kla...@aklaver.com
