Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0297D133616B
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:25:41 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 16410-08
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:25:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from elizabeth.gransy.com (elizabeth.gransy.com [89.187.132.199])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D49E1337B53
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:25:33 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sq.gransy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by elizabeth.gransy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D4915E412E;
	Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:25:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 85.162.33.90 (SquirrelMail authenticated user tv@fuzzy.cz)
	by sq.gransy.com with HTTP; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:25:33 +0100
Message-ID: <9e934a9fa3759396caaec2c3974af5d6.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
In-Reply-To: <201011251310.17080.andres@anarazel.de>
References: <991565.83793.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<d0ba0839bcf4b41b456ec741f705e9bb.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
	<201011251310.17080.andres@anarazel.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:25:33 +0100
Subject: Re: Which gives good performance? separate database vs separate
 schema
From: tv@fuzzy.cz
To: "Andres Freund" <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, tv@fuzzy.cz,
	"Divakar Singh" <dpsmails@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201011/373
X-Sequence-Number: 41397

> 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