| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes |
| Date: | 2017-12-14 19:26:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYtRb2R_H8gzmyCSbkgWdCFbUJdvpmpFQiFxj9Dr1Pc9g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik
<k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> I can not believe that there can be more than thousand non-temporary
> relations in any database.
I ran across a cluster with more than 5 million non-temporary
relations just this week. That's extreme, but having more than a
thousand non-temporary tables is not particularly uncommon. I would
guess that the percentage of EnterpriseDB's customers who have more
than a thousand non-temporary tables in a database is in the double
digits. That number is only going to go up as our partitioning
capabilities improve.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-12-14 20:06:26 | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV |
| Previous Message | Alexander Kuzmenkov | 2017-12-14 18:55:09 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for CSN based snapshots |