X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146FA9FA326 for ; Tue, 23 May 2006 21:54:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 73775-02 for ; Tue, 23 May 2006 21:54:11 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.188]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002149F9D99 for ; Tue, 23 May 2006 21:54:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id p48so5687nfa for ; Tue, 23 May 2006 17:54:10 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=c5ePo2no+W8yYs5C+CU0XlRPEClIG44MOCvNrLCGp2oFHNPyOgEIEwJw9a/kBr090r2DHt0s93VuT/8fCoGYKhVaXEmafl0cy8yXUPeue41e5vT1xc0hg4c96lS2mang0puNcvqdhHHyIF0GQfUgatJWa0vfYU9f5fa8xyn2RcE= Received: by 10.49.68.20 with SMTP id v20mr5206760nfk; Tue, 23 May 2006 17:54:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.48.226.12 with HTTP; Tue, 23 May 2006 17:54:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6d8daee30605231754s58364cd1o79a6520f203a1734@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 17:54:09 -0700 From: "Tony Wasson" To: "Jim C. Nasby" Subject: Re: [SQL] (Ab)Using schemas and inheritance Cc: "Jorge Godoy" , pgsql-general@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20060523232609.GP64371@pervasive.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200605231716.58784.jgodoy@gmail.com> <20060523232609.GP64371@pervasive.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/1124 X-Sequence-Number: 95916 On 5/23/06, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > Is this a good idea? Would this be too bad, performance-wise, if I had > > thousands of schemas to use like that? Any advice on better approaches= ? Any > > expected problems? > > One issue is that you'll probably be breaking new ground here a bit; I > suspect there's very few people that are using more than a handful of > schemas. Shouldn't pose any issues, but you never know; although any > issues you do run into should only be performance problems. $.02 about lots of schemas. I worked with an application that had 500 schemas and that worked very well. However, as the number of schemas exceeeded 8000 the query speed started to degrade. Running \d with a single schema in your search path took a few seconds with that many schemas. Queries that were running in 100ms were now taking about 600ms. In short, postgresql will support lots of schemas.