On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:11 AM, S Arvind <arvindwill@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Tough to say without benchmarking, but if you have a lot of small
> Thanks Robert,
> So for our scenario what is the most important factor to be noted
> for performance.
databases that easily fit in RAM, and a lot of concurrent connections,
I would think you'd want to spend your hardware $ on maximizing the
number of cores.
But there are many in this forum who have much more experience with
these things than me, so take that with a grain of salt...
(You might also want to look at consolidating some of those databases
- maybe use one database with multiple schemas - that would probably
help performance significantly.)
I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind it! As long as they are different objects, how would it help performance if tables are stored in separate schema, or in separate databases; or are you referring to the difference in size of system tables and the performance improvement resulting from keeping all metadata in a single catalog.
Best regards,
--
Lets call it Postgres
gurjeet[.singh]@EnterpriseDB.com
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
singh.gurjeet@{ gmail | yahoo }.com
Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet
Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
