Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?

From: Vlad <marchenko(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Ron Johnson" <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
Date: 2006-12-21 20:01:58
Message-ID: cd70c6810612211201j5fbca0f6q2fa9053ac18aa372@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 12/21/06, Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Given the same physical hardware, which one is likely to perform
> better? Does
> >> it make any difference? Does using separate databases use more RAM than
> a
> >> single database with a bunch of different tables?
>
> Config files are global, so I doubt it.
>

if it's a web app with persistent connections, then splitting onto several
databases may consume more RAM. Example: 100 apache clients connected to 3
databases creates 300 forked postmaster processes ; vs 100 apache clients
connected to the same DB using three schemas only takes 100 postmasters

-- Vlad

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomasz Ostrowski 2006-12-21 20:04:33 Re: Password strength requirements
Previous Message Ron Johnson 2006-12-21 19:47:27 Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?