From: | snacktime <snacktime(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: using schema's for data separation |
Date: | 2006-09-29 18:27:14 |
Message-ID: | 1f060c4c0609291127s34e1756cxfcba3e28d5dad2f1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 9/29/06, Just Someone <just(dot)some(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I am using a similar solution, and I tested it with a test containing
> 20K+ different schemas. Postgres didn't show slowness at all even
> after the 20K (over 2 million total tables) were created. So I have
> feeling it can grow even more.
That's good to know we haven't really tested it against that many
schema's, other then actually creating them to make sure there wasn't
some sort of hard limit or bug no one had run into before.
Performance with schema's is actually one thing I do like. A query
for any one user is only hitting the data in the one schema, so users
with large data sets don't impact the query performance of users with
smaller data sets.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Brandon Aiken | 2006-09-29 18:44:59 | Re: [NOVICE] Do non-sequential primary keys slow performance significantly?? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-29 17:59:27 | Re: [GENERAL] Array assignment behavior (was Re: Stored procedure array limits) |