| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Jon Cruz <JoCruz(at)ncen(dot)com>, "A(dot) Kretschmer" <andreas(dot)kretschmer(at)schollglas(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Limitations : Number of ... |
| Date: | 2006-02-23 21:43:27 |
| Message-ID: | 26179.1140731007@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Logically, unlimited. Practically, because tables are stored as files,
> at some point you might run out of inodes on your disk. You're more
> likely to run out of disk-space first though, unless your tables are
> small.
Another constraint is that many filesystems don't behave real well with
lots and lots of files in a single filesystem directory (where "lots and
lots" usually translates to trouble in the 10K-100K range). You could
work around this to some extent by splitting the database into multiple
tablespaces, but most people are going to tell you that a schema with
that many tables needs reconsideration anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bernhard Weisshuhn | 2006-02-23 21:52:13 | Re: Temporal Databases |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-02-23 21:35:25 | Re: SQL TYPE MAP such as SQL_CHAR, SQL_NUMERIC , etc |