X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A609DCD35 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:03:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50072-10 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:03:50 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5889DCBEC for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:03:49 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB1G3g2k011361; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:03:42 -0500 (EST) To: Michael Riess cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 15,000 tables In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Michael Riess message dated "Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:42:14 +0100" Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:03:42 -0500 Message-ID: <11360.1133453022@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/18 X-Sequence-Number: 15839 Michael Riess writes: > (We NEED that many tables, please don't recommend to reduce them) No, you don't. Add an additional key column to fold together different tables of the same structure. This will be much more efficient than managing that key at the filesystem level, which is what you're effectively doing now. (If you really have 15000 distinct rowtypes, I'd like to know what your database design is...) regards, tom lane