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:I am talking shit here, obviously, excuse me. We would go with, for
> 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).
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.
