From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Akshaya Acharya <akshaya(dot)acharya(dot)01(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Too many range table entries error |
Date: | 2018-06-26 00:37:58 |
Message-ID: | 21974.1529973478@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-06-25 13:46:06 +0530, Akshaya Acharya wrote:
>> Our entire application-all our business logic-is built as layers of views
>> inside the database. The ref counts sort of multiple at each layer, hence
>> the large number.
> That still doesn't explain how you realistically get to 40k references,
> and how that's a reasonable design.
The short answer here is that even if the system accepted queries with
that many tables, it's really unlikely to perform acceptably --- in fact,
I'm a bit astonished that you even found a way to reach this error without
having waited a few hours beforehand. And we are *not* going to promise
to fix all the performance issues you will hit with a schema design like
this. Redesign. Please.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-06-26 05:10:23 | Re: using pg_basebackup for point in time recovery |
Previous Message | Data Ace | 2018-06-26 00:34:50 | Re: PostgreSQL Volume Question |