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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 






On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Vedran Krivokuca <vkrivokuca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Vedran Krivokuca <vkrivokuca@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
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.


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux