Craig Ringer ha scritto:
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 09:01 +0200, Fabio La Farcioli wrote:
Each user have a 2 table of work...I finally have 2.000 (users) x 2
tables = 4.000 tables!
Hmm, ok. Does each user really need two tables each? Why?
Does the set of tables for each user have a different structure? Or are
you separating them so you can give each user a separate database role
and ownership of their own tables?
No no...
i have problem of performance ???
Yes, you probably will. There is a cost to having _lots_ of tables in
PostgreSQL in terms of maintaining table statistics, autovacuum work,
etc. I doubt it'll be too bad at 4000 tables, but if your user numbers
keep growing it could become a problem.
The number of the user probably will increase with the time...
Other concerns are that it'll also be hard to maintain your design,
difficult to write queries that read data from more than one user, etc.
If you need to change the schema of your user tables you're going to
have to write custom tools to automate it. It could get very clumsy.
It's true...i don't think to this problem..
Note that whether this is a good idea DOES depend on how much data
you're going to have. If each user table will have _lots_ of data, then
individual tables might be a better approach after all. It's also a
benefit if you do intend to give each user their own database role.
Every table have between 1.000 and 100.000(MAX) records...
Do you think i don't have problem in performance ??
The user only view the record whit its user_id....
I am thinking to redesign the DB
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
