Re: Large # of Tables, Getting ready for the enterprise

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "carl garland" <carlhgarland(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large # of Tables, Getting ready for the enterprise
Date: 2000-08-19 05:03:01
Message-ID: 22053.966661381@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"carl garland" <carlhgarland(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> Currently postgres will support an incredible amount of tables whereas
> Interbase only supports 64K, but the efficiency and performance of the
> pg backend quickly degenerates after 1000 tables.

Current sources fix some problems with large numbers of indexes
(pg_index was being sequentially scanned in several places). Offhand
I'm not aware of any other significant real-world performance problems
in this area; can you be more specific about what's bothering you?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-08-19 05:22:43 Re: pg_attribute growing and growing and growing
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-08-19 03:20:52 Re: Functions and Null Values