From: Michael Riess <mlriess@gmx.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 15,000 tables
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:04:06 +0100
Message-ID: <dmn6tm$1n9n$1@news.hub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c2d9e70e0512010742p5e5fb61dx84dfb8e332c05352@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dmmujf$2rgd$1@news.hub.org>
<c2d9e70e0512010742p5e5fb61dx84dfb8e332c05352@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
> On 12/1/05, Michael Riess <mlriess@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 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)
>>
>
> Have you ANALYZEd your database? VACUUMing?
Of course ... before 8.1 we routinely did a vacuum full analyze each
night. As of 8.1 we use autovacuum.
>
> BTW, are you using some kind of weird ERP? I have one that treat
> informix as a fool and don't let me get all of informix potential...
> maybe the same is in your case...
No. Our database contains tables for we content management systems. The
server hosts approx. 500 cms applications, and each of them has approx.
30 tables.
That's why I'm asking if it was better to have 500 databases with 30
tables each. In previous Postgres versions this led to even worse
performance ...
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: <dmn6tm$1n9n$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