Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([87.238.57.229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TZ1hX-0001qk-Mr for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:49:59 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TZ1hU-0005q8-PQ for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:49:58 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TZ1hR-00083S-R1; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:49:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:49:53 -0500 From: Bruce Momjian To: Craig Ringer Cc: Denis , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Thousands databases or schemas Message-ID: <20121115154953.GA13919@momjian.us> References: <1352367376704-5731189.post@n5.nabble.com> <1352381380303-5731203.post@n5.nabble.com> <509C9F91.4020902@2ndQuadrant.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <509C9F91.4020902@2ndQuadrant.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201211/178 X-Sequence-Number: 48544 On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 02:15:45PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 11/08/2012 09:29 PM, Denis wrote: > > Ok guys, it was not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings by mentioning > > MySQL. Sorry about that. > It's pretty silly to be upset by someone mentioning another DB product. > I wouldn't worry. > > There simply was a project with a similar > > architecture built using MySQL. When we started the current project, I have > > made a decision to give PostgreSQL a try. > It's certainly interesting that MySQL currently scales to much larger > table counts better than PostgreSQL appears to. > > I'd like to see if this can be improved down the track. Various people > are doing work on PostgreSQL scaling and performance, so with luck huge > table counts will come into play there. If nothing else, supporting > large table counts is important when dealing with very large amounts of > data in partitioned tables. > > I think I saw mention of better performance with higher table counts in > 9.3 in -hackers, too. Yes, 9.3 does much better dumping/restoring databases with a large number of tables. I was testing this as part of pg_upgrade performance improvements for large tables. We have a few other things we might try to improve for 9.3 related to caching, but that might not help in this case. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +