Re: How to treat several identical database as one.

In article <322CA6C8.6D9F@segel.com>, Mike Segel <mikey@segel.com> writes >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 ....) Exactly. -- David Williams