X-Original-To: pgsql-es-ayuda-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F0F9DD67F for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:45:24 -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 41907-07 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:45:18 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.198]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05AA9DD67A for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:45:20 -0400 (AST) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i3so382661wra for ; Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:45:25 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Fp1ad+hwplSHcUcMAMpL4f7vjRpqLBRtAxrmfhSHzNeiEAOX/QERVcwmA3qkxA9JNtqmQCXiOzmO8ax2oPI81NH8oOEN0AJ6pEs/UO9tdKh4TqgFcASovAm0smgejNYb/FDEE7fFr+9QjzNAqqyVC2pL4ATKUPMDI3J1qwjg2Do= Received: by 10.65.133.19 with SMTP id k19mr909677qbn; Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:45:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.244.8 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 07:45:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <84d933650512010745j5bb6cd0cn@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:45:25 -0400 From: "Ing. Jhon Carrillo // Caracas, Venezuela" To: Michael Riess , Postgresql Subject: Re: [PERFORM] 15,000 tables In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: 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: 200512/9 X-Sequence-Number: 12824 2005/12/1, Michael Riess : > Hi, > > we are currently running a postgres server (upgraded to 8.1) which has > one large database with approx. 15,000 tables. Unfortunately performance > suffers from that, because the internal tables (especially that which > holds the attribute info) get too large. > > (We NEED that many tables, please don't recommend to reduce them) it's amazing!!!!! 15000 tables!!!! WOW what kind of information you managment in your db? Imagine some querys :( only for curiosity!!!!! Jhon Carrillo DBA / Software Engineer Caracas-Venezuela > > Logically these tables could be grouped into 500 databases. My question i= s: > > Would performance be better if I had 500 databases (on one postgres > server instance) which each contain 30 tables, or is it better to have > one large database with 15,000 tables? In the old days of postgres 6.5 > we tried that, but performance was horrible with many databases ... > > BTW: I searched the mailing list, but found nothing on the subject - and > there also isn't any information in the documentation about the effects > of the number of databases, tables or attributes on the performance. > > Now, what do you say? Thanks in advance for any comment! > > Mike > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match > --