X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E5A9DD694 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:15:49 -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 56821-05 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:15:46 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3FE9DD684 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:15:46 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB1GFkiv064330 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:15:46 GMT (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jB1G46Am057605 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:04:06 GMT (envelope-from news) From: Michael Riess X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: 15,000 tables Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:04:06 +0100 Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025) In-Reply-To: To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.44 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.44] X-Spam-Score: -1.44 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/21 X-Sequence-Number: 15842 Hi, > On 12/1/05, Michael Riess 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