On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 02:15:45PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 11/08/2012 09:29 PM, Denis wrote: > > Ok guys, it was not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings by mentioning > > MySQL. Sorry about that. > It's pretty silly to be upset by someone mentioning another DB product. > I wouldn't worry. > > There simply was a project with a similar > > architecture built using MySQL. When we started the current project, I have > > made a decision to give PostgreSQL a try. > It's certainly interesting that MySQL currently scales to much larger > table counts better than PostgreSQL appears to. > > I'd like to see if this can be improved down the track. Various people > are doing work on PostgreSQL scaling and performance, so with luck huge > table counts will come into play there. If nothing else, supporting > large table counts is important when dealing with very large amounts of > data in partitioned tables. > > I think I saw mention of better performance with higher table counts in > 9.3 in -hackers, too. Yes, 9.3 does much better dumping/restoring databases with a large number of tables. I was testing this as part of pg_upgrade performance improvements for large tables. We have a few other things we might try to improve for 9.3 related to caching, but that might not help in this case. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
