Re: How to treat several identical database as one.

Jonathan Leffler wrote: > > An alternative is to locate one copy of the job table on one of > the servers, and to have the other two databases contain a synonym > which points to the remote table. The advantage of this is that > it works; the disadvantage is that it relies on the central machine > being up. > > If that is not OK, then replication is probably the answer. > > I think the performance of a stored procedure implementing the view > is very unlikely to be good enough, not least because SPs do not > support dynamic SQL so there is no way of restricting the set of > rows returned by the view -- the SP would always end up returning > all the rows in all three tables. > > Yours, > Jonathan Leffler (johnl@informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h> > > }From: "Chao Y. Din" <cdin@csc.com> > }Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 09:29:14 -0400 > }X-Informix-List-Id: <news.27678> > } > }David Williams wrote: [SNIP] > }> We don't want to replicate the data just make all the similar tables > }> appear as one table so the PC-base reporting tool (GQL) can be used > }> by 'normal' users? i.e. non-techines. Well, lets look at it another way: The poster wants to have three separate sites with no co-mingling of the data. Each site is responsible for its local data. So replication will not work. (Based on his needs.) -Mikey (Let me think about this one ....)