From: | Noah Silverman <noah(at)allresearch(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Multiple databases one directory |
Date: | 2003-01-25 00:57:01 |
Message-ID: | E9DFCD49-2FFF-11D7-A3A3-000393AA8F3C@allresearch.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Thanks,
We're considering this.
On an unrelated note, it looks like our crash was due to running out of
file descriptors for the bash shell.
Linux won't let me increase the limit for a user other than root. Does
anyone know how to change this (We're running slackware)
Thanks,
-N
On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 07:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Silverman <noah(at)allresearch(dot)com> writes:
>> We have a situation where we will be creating two fairly large and
>> complex databases with many tables (thousands) each. From what I
>> understand, postgres keeps everything in one big data directory.
>
> Yeah. You're kind of at the mercy of the operating system when you do
> that: if it copes well with big directories, no problem, but if lookups
> in big directories are slow then you'll take a performance hit.
>
> The first thing I'd ask is *why* you think you need thousands of
> tables. How will you keep track of them? Are there really thousands
> of
> different table schemas? Maybe you can combine tables by introducing
> an extra key column.
>
> Perhaps a little bit of rethinking will yield a small design screaming
> to get out of this big one ...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-25 01:04:07 | Re: WEIRD CRASH?!?! |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-25 00:50:24 | Re: Multiple databases one directory |