DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
	h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
	b=qPisUDD2E6eiCvCVURMtDIseRryPvDesdL8E1CX5y0SoRHSTKzVR388Lng7qSuHHoj3sJn0I5pUVhGEUt9kLDf2UXrsXnMTtRcVzvBtyCTJeL9IgkMC7v8YIQ5mvS092q813MZPHftqFw+esEIRWl+R4K+Mxl3w5nTNL4lFt0RQ=;
Message-ID: <561635.22935.qm@web65413.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <991565.83793.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<d0ba0839bcf4b41b456ec741f705e9bb.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
	<201011251310.17080.andres@anarazel.de>
	<9e934a9fa3759396caaec2c3974af5d6.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:53:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Divakar Singh <dpsmails@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Which gives good performance? separate database vs separate
 schema
To: tv@fuzzy.cz, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, tv@fuzzy.cz
In-Reply-To: <9e934a9fa3759396caaec2c3974af5d6.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-120276696-1290696820=:22935"

--0-120276696-1290696820=:22935
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I am not facing any issues, but yes I want to have optimal performance for 
SELECT and INSERT, especially when I am doing these ops repeatedly.
Actually I am porting from Oracle to PG. Oracle starts a lot of processes when 
it needs to run many schemas. I do not think PG would need much more resources 
(mem, cpu) if I go for different database for each process..? Also, is there any 
limit on number of databases I can start using a PG server? 


 Best Regards,
Divakar


________________________________
From: "tv@fuzzy.cz" <tv@fuzzy.cz>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; tv@fuzzy.cz; Divakar Singh 
<dpsmails@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, November 25, 2010 5:55:33 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Which gives good performance? separate database vs 
separate schema

> On Thursday 25 November 2010 13:02:08 tv@fuzzy.cz wrote:
>> I don't think you'll get performance improvement from running two
>> PostgreSQL clusters (one for DB1, one for DB2). And when running two
>> databases within the same cluster, there's no measurable performance
>> difference AFAIK.
> That one is definitely not true in many circumstances. As soon as you
> start to
> hit contention (shared memory, locks) you may very well be better of with
> two
> separate clusters.
>
> Andres
>
Good point, I forgot about that. Anyway it's hard to predict what kind of
performance issue he's facing and whether two clusters would fix it.

regards
Tomas


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance


--0-120276696-1290696820=:22935
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">I am not facing any issues, but yes I want to have optimal performance for SELECT and INSERT, especially when I am doing these ops repeatedly.<br>Actually I am porting from Oracle to PG. Oracle starts a lot of processes when it needs to run many schemas. I do not think PG would need much more resources (mem, cpu) if I go for different database for each process..? Also, is there any limit on number of databases I can start using a PG server? <br><div>&nbsp;</div>Best Regards,<br>Divakar<div><br></div><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><br><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> "tv@fuzzy.cz" &lt;tv@fuzzy.cz&gt;<br><b><span style="font-weight:
 bold;">To:</span></b> Andres Freund &lt;andres@anarazel.de&gt;<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; tv@fuzzy.cz; Divakar Singh &lt;dpsmails@yahoo.com&gt;<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thu, November 25, 2010 5:55:33 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [PERFORM] Which gives good performance? separate database vs separate schema<br></font><br>&gt; On Thursday 25 November 2010 13:02:08 <a ymailto="mailto:tv@fuzzy.cz" href="mailto:tv@fuzzy.cz">tv@fuzzy.cz</a> wrote:<br>&gt;&gt; I don't think you'll get performance improvement from running two<br>&gt;&gt; PostgreSQL clusters (one for DB1, one for DB2). And when running two<br>&gt;&gt; databases within the same cluster, there's no measurable performance<br>&gt;&gt; difference AFAIK.<br>&gt; That one is definitely not true in many circumstances. As soon as you<br>&gt; start to<br>&gt; hit contention
 (shared memory, locks) you may very well be better of with<br>&gt; two<br>&gt; separate clusters.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Andres<br>&gt;<br>Good point, I forgot about that. Anyway it's hard to predict what kind of<br>performance issue he's facing and whether two clusters would fix it.<br><br>regards<br>Tomas<br><br><br>-- <br>Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (<a ymailto="mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" href="mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org">pgsql-performance@postgresql.org</a>)<br>To make changes to your subscription:<br><a href="http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance" target="_blank">http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance</a><br></div></div>
</div><br>

      </body></html>
--0-120276696-1290696820=:22935--