On Wednesday 25 June 2003 20:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Well, correct solution is to implement tablespaces on which objects like
> > databases, tables and indexes can be put.
> I've not looked at the SQL standard, but it seems to me like the order
> should be:
> Databases
>    Tablespaces
>       Schemas
>          Objects (tables, indexes, functions, etc.)

That should be 


with each of them implemented as a directory and data files under it. If we 
could get a quota check propogated in both direction, that would be pretty 
good, may be a warning when things start getting close to limit. 

> And it really isn't hierarchical.  As I understand them (based on my
> Oracle background), tablespaces, unlike schemas, do NOT create a layer
> of data abstraction.   That is to say, while the same table name
> can exist in multiple schemas, only one instance of a given table name
> within a given schema can exist, regardless of what tablespace it is in.

Well, if same table name exists in two different databases under same 
tablespace, what's the problem?

> Whether or not two databases can share tablespaces isn't clear to me,
> though as a DBA I can think of good reasons why they probably shouldn't
> do so, I'm not sure if that is an absolute.

Well, I would say they should be allowed to.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to