From: Michael Riess <mlriess@gmx.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: 15,000 tables
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 14:42:14 +0100
Message-ID: <dmmujf$2rgd$1@news.hub.org> (raw)
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)
Logically these tables could be grouped into 500 databases. My question is:
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mlriess@gmx.de
Subject: Re: 15,000 tables
In-Reply-To: <dmmujf$2rgd$1@news.hub.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox