And finally,
following on from my previous questions, I have a database at the
moment with relatively static gis data and a large amount of content
being added regularly. I'm learning about how Schema's work, and it
would seem to me that I might see some management benefits from
putting my GIS data into a schema on it's own, so I can pg_dump only
my general work schema regularly, and the gis schema only after I've
made changes (probably only every few months). This would help to
avoid the current risk of not backing up tables because I added them
to the database, but not to the -t element of pg_dump. It would also
help because we backup nightly, and then transfer the database
(currently around 54MB) across the internet to an offsite server. I'm
guessing with out the GIS component, we'd be talking about < 2MB.
Given the size of the GIS component, this would be attractive... but
are there implications for speed? Indexing? any good reasons not to do
this?
cheers
Ben
--
Ben Madin
REMOTE INFORMATION
t : +61 8 9192 5455
f : +61 8 9192 5535
m : 0448 887 220
Broome WA 6725
[email protected]
Out here, it pays to
know...
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
