Ok, thanks for the limits info, but I have that in the manual. Thanks.
But what I really want to know is this:
1) All large objects of all tables inside one DATABASE is kept on only one
table. True or false?
On 10/25/05, Nörder-Tuitje, Marcus <noerder-tuitje(at)technology(dot)de> wrote:
> oh, btw, no harm, but :
> having 5000 tables only to gain access via city name is a major design
> you might consider putting all into one table working with a distributed
> index over yer table (city, loc_texdt, blobfield); creating a partitioned
> index over city.
> best regards
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> *Von:* pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:
> pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]*Im Auftrag von *Rodrigo Madera
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 24. Oktober 2005 21:12
> *An:* pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> *Betreff:* Re: [PERFORM] Inefficient escape codes.
> Now this interests me a lot.
> Please clarify this:
> I have 5000 tables, one for each city:
> City1_Photos, City2_Photos, ... City5000_Photos.
> Each of these tables are: CREATE TABLE CityN_Photos (location text, lo_id
> So, what's the limit for these large objects? I heard I could only have 4
> billion records for the whole database (not for each table). Is this true?
> If this isn't true, then would postgres manage to create all the large
> objects I ask him to?
> Also, this would be a performance penalty, wouldn't it?
> Much thanks for the knowledge shared,
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Michael Fuhr||Date: 2005-10-25 16:04:08|
|Subject: Re: impact of stats_command_string|
|Previous:||From: Kishore B||Date: 2005-10-25 15:04:21|
|Subject: Re: Why Index is not working on date columns.|