Re: [PERFORM] 15,000 tables

2005/12/1, Michael Riess <mlriess(at)gmx(dot)de>:
> 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)

it's amazing!!!!! 15000 tables!!!! WOW

what kind of information you managment in your db?

Imagine some querys :(

only for curiosity!!!!!

Jhon Carrillo
DBA / Software Engineer
Caracas-Venezuela

>
> Logically these tables could be grouped into 500 databases. My question is:

>
> Would performance be better if I had 500 databases (on one postgres
> server instance) which each contain 30 tables, or is it better to have
> one large database with 15,000 tables? In the old days of postgres 6.5
> we tried that, but performance was horrible with many databases ...
>
> BTW: I searched the mailing list, but found nothing on the subject - and
> there also isn't any information in the documentation about the effects
> of the number of databases, tables or attributes on the performance.
>
> Now, what do you say? Thanks in advance for any comment!
>
> Mike
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>

--