From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Cross <decius(at)whack(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Scale, Normalization, and Table Count |
Date: | 2002-10-07 15:06:24 |
Message-ID: | 23780.1034003184@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Cross <decius(at)whack(dot)org> writes:
> Much to my horror I got an error message while attempting to back up my
> database tonight:
> pg_dump: NOTICE: ShmemAlloc: out of memory
> pg_dump: Attempt to lock table "thread_204" failed. ERROR: LockAcquire:
> lock table 1 is out of memory
> Obviously this is related to my shared memory allocations.
The easiest response to this is to increase your
max_locks_per_transaction parameter in postgresql.conf.
The default (64) seems to be plenty for most people, as we hear reports
of such problems only once in a blue moon. But you're right that a
system with many thousands of tables might need more.
> There are, lets say, 1000 messages on each topic. Users will only access
> one topic at a time. It seems intuitive that it would be less expensive
> to create an individual table for each topic then it would be to put all
> of the messages in a single table.
I concur with the nearby responses that say this is indeed a bad design.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-07 15:21:57 | Re: [pgsql-performance] Large databases, performance |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-07 15:00:06 | Re: Trouble compiling postgresql in hp-unix |