Re: Millions of tables

From: Richard Albright <rla3rd(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Vitalii Tymchyshyn <vit(at)tym(dot)im>
Cc: Greg Spiegelberg <gspiegelberg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>, "pgsql-performa(dot)" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Millions of tables
Date: 2016-09-28 16:05:19
Message-ID: CA+iZHvng=YiG5vQcw7E8UndEZkvbTWenkapq8cMVFXqFxRRUwA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

If going that route, why not just use plproxy?

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Vitalii Tymchyshyn <vit(at)tym(dot)im> wrote:

> Have you considered having many databases (e.g. 100) and possibly many
> postgresql servers (e.g. 10) started on different ports?
> This would give you 1000x less tables per db.
>
>>
>>>

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Spiegelberg 2016-09-28 16:27:00 Re: Millions of tables
Previous Message Vitalii Tymchyshyn 2016-09-28 15:39:44 Re: Millions of tables