Re: Experience with large number of tables in single PostgreSQL instance

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Vedran Krivokuca <vkrivokuca(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Vedran Krivokuca <vkrivokuca(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > 1) we can go with different instances of PostgreSQL service, let's say
> > (for pure theory) 10 of them on the same HA cluster setup. Every
> > instance would hold let's say 1/10th of that big recordset, and around
> > 3.000 database tables (this apparently shouldn't be of any problem to
> > PostgreSQL, see below).
>
> I am talking shit here, obviously, excuse me. We would go with, for
> example, 10 or 100 databases in the same PostgreSQL instance.
> Buzzwording got better of me. :) The rest of my initial e-mail still
> applies, I will cherish any input of experience on this subject.
>
>
> V.
>
> --
> Pozdrav/Greetings,
> Vedran Krivokuća
> Disclaimer: This message may contain information.
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>

I think that a limitation would be on the OS (filesystem and kernel)
because each table
is a file (or more) under a directory (per database). I haven't got
experience on how
modern Linux system cope with that but i think it would be something
easy to test.
Database wise you shouldn't have a problem.