Re: Thousands databases or schemas

From: Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com>
To: Denis <socsam(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thousands databases or schemas
Date: 2012-11-08 10:31:52
Message-ID: CAEV0TzAv=BLZODAARJRwOAjQ3B=MuoZ+WntKfa4zO0OQ0wReCw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Denis <socsam(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> P.S.
> Not to start a holywar, but FYI: in a similar project where we used MySQL
> now we have about 6000 DBs and everything works like a charm.
>

You seem to have answered your own question here. If my recollection of a
previous discussion about many schemas and pg_dump performance is accurate,
I suspect you are going to be told that you've got a data architecture that
is fairly incompatible with postgresql's architecture and you've
specifically ruled out a solution that would play to postgresql's strengths.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oliver Seidel 2012-11-08 11:55:12 parallel query evaluation
Previous Message Denis 2012-11-08 09:36:16 Thousands databases or schemas