Re: Postgres is not able to handle more than 4k tables!?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: 'Konstantin Knizhnik' <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Postgres is not able to handle more than 4k tables!?
Date: 2020-07-14 22:59:03
Message-ID: 20200714225903.GC17494@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:10:20AM +0000, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com
wrote:
> > There were many proposed patches which help to improve this
> > situation. But as far as this patches increase performance only
> > at huge servers with large number of cores and show almost no
> > improvement (or even some degradation) at standard 4-cores desktops,
> > almost none of them were committed. Consequently our customers have
> > a lot of troubles trying to replace Oracle with Postgres and provide
> > the same performance at same (quite good and expensive) hardware.
>
> Yeah, it's a pity that the shiny-looking patches from Postgres Pro
> (mostly from Konstantin san?) -- autoprepare, built-in connection
> pooling, fair lwlock, and revolutionary multi-threaded backend --
> haven't gained hot atension.

Yeah, it is probably time for us to get access to a current large-scale
machine again and really find the bottlenecks. We seem to next this
every few years.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-07-14 23:12:25 Re: Towards easier AMs: Cleaning up inappropriate use of name "relkind"
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-07-14 22:49:40 Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk