From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Kynn Jones" <kynnjo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Steve Atkins" <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>, "pgsql-general General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: limits? |
Date: | 2008-06-23 20:05:17 |
Message-ID: | 1943.1214251517@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Kynn Jones" <kynnjo(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Actually, the DB I have in mind would certainly be approaching "silly
> territory." I'm looking at a schema with around 10 thousand tables (or
> views). Unfortunately, as far as I can tell,
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/ says nothing about maximum number of
> tables.
There is no hard limit (at least not till you hit the 16TB size limit on
pg_class or pg_attribute...). In practice this number tends to be
constrained by the operating system, not Postgres. How well does your
OS do with tens of thousands of entries in a single directory?
Generally, though, schema designs like this amount to manually replacing
leading columns of an index key with separate tables, and they're
usually bad style and a PITA to work with. If you have a desperate need
to partition the data then you might have to go that way, but you should
think twice.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rodrigo E. De León Plicet | 2008-06-23 20:09:46 | Re: limits? |
Previous Message | Mark Roberts | 2008-06-23 19:48:46 | Re: Update Join Query |