Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?

From: Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date: 2007-06-06 17:32:13
Message-ID: 4666EF9D.90500@emolecules.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Scott Marlowe wrote:
> OTOH, there are some things, like importing data, which are MUCH faster
> in pgsql than in the big database.

An excellent point, I forgot about this. The COPY command is the best thing since the invention of a shirt pocket. We have a database-per-customer design, and one of the mosterous advantages of Postgres is that we can easily do backups. A pg_dump, then scp to a backup server, and in just a minute or two we have a full backup. For recovery, pg_restore is equally fast and amazing. Last time I checked, Oracle didn't have anything close to this.

Craig

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2007-06-06 18:01:59 Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2007-06-06 16:49:36 Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?