From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | "Kynn Jones" <kynnjo(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Steve Atkins" <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: limits? |
Date: | 2008-06-26 03:07:17 |
Message-ID: | 200806252307.17749.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Monday 23 June 2008 15:45:22 Kynn Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> wrote:
> > In real use you're unlikely to hit any limits, theoretical or practical,
> > but if you start to use a silly number of tables and so on you're likely
> > to hit performance issues eventually. I'm not sure where that threshold
> > would be, but it's higher than "thousands".
>
> 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. I suppose I could always find what this limit is "the hard way",
> by writing a script that just keeps creating empty tables and see where
> that goes, but I'd prefer not to do something like this...
>
http://people.planetpostgresql.org/greg/index.php?/archives/37-The-million-table-challenge.html
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-26 03:17:37 | Re: IF ROW( NEW ) <> ROW( OLD ) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-26 02:56:10 | Re: what are rules for? |