Message-ID: <a7733b8abeb0449d972f1cf88975f1a0971706a7.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Tablespace size in TB
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: masheed ullah <masheedullah@gmail.com>, 
	pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Date: Sun, 03 May 2026 14:18:01 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAHr8x_uxG6vjYaXGx_hCSKe5PQQ3FiZ8UUd822=YgkRwxQB8Nw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CAHr8x_uxG6vjYaXGx_hCSKe5PQQ3FiZ8UUd822=YgkRwxQB8Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a7733b8abeb0449d972f1cf88975f1a0971706a7.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 2026-05-03 at 12:35 +0300, masheed ullah wrote:
> Our team is using a single tablespace for the whole database. Its size is=
 more than 13TB.
> I am from an Oracle background and want to suggest that they split the da=
ta in multiple tablespaces.
> It will not only improve the performance & reduce the backup time.
> But I did not find any Postgres best practice or blog, to show as a refer=
ence.

Normally, using tablespaces won't speed up processing or backup; it just ma=
kes
administration slightly more complicated.
You shouldn't have created a tablespace in the first place (the default tab=
lespace
is good), and I don't think you'll benefit from having more tablespaces.

To be more precise, a correct answer would depend on your backup method.
If you are using storage techniques to copy the 13TB, and those storage
techniques become faster if you have more than a single file system,
then you could benefit from more tabespaces.  Otherwise you won't.

What makes sense to split up is large tables.  Using partitioning might
make the individual partitions easier to maintain.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe