From: | "Tony Wasson" <ajwasson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jorge Godoy" <jgodoy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [SQL] (Ab)Using schemas and inheritance |
Date: | 2006-05-24 00:54:09 |
Message-ID: | 6d8daee30605231754s58364cd1o79a6520f203a1734@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-sql |
On 5/23/06, Jim C. Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> 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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jorge Godoy | 2006-05-24 01:09:45 | Re: [SQL] (Ab)Using schemas and inheritance |
Previous Message | Shelby Cain | 2006-05-24 00:29:14 | Re: allow LIMIT in UPDATE and DELETE |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jorge Godoy | 2006-05-24 01:09:45 | Re: [SQL] (Ab)Using schemas and inheritance |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-23 23:26:09 | Re: [SQL] (Ab)Using schemas and inheritance |