From: | Soma Interesting <dfunct(at)telus(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Overhead of tables. |
Date: | 2000-12-06 05:34:19 |
Message-ID: | 5.0.0.25.0.20001205213357.0284cb50@pop.telus.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
At 11:48 PM 12/5/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Soma Interesting <dfunct(at)telus(dot)net> writes:
> > I'd like to get an idea of the overhead introduced by large quantity of
> > tables being hosted off a single PostgreSQL server. It is possible I'll be
> > wanting to host upwards of 200-500 tables per server. Essentially, will I
> > be surprised to find out that performance in PostgreSQL (or DBMS in
> > general) is significantly hindered by sheer quantity of tables?
>When you get to tens of thousands of tables per server, we might start
>to worry a little... 500 is in the "what me worry?" class.
>
> regards, tom lane
That is what I'd expect - but I've not experienced it to really know first
hand. Thanks for the input.
If a couple more people would just say the same thing - I could rest easy
about moving forward on this. :)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alain Toussaint | 2000-12-06 05:34:24 | Re: Clarification |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-06 05:04:09 | Re: Many postmasters... |