On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Craig Ringer <ringerc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quite likely, yes.On 07/18/2012 12:02 PM, Pawel Veselov wrote:
Hi.
If I have a lot (10k) tables, and each table has a btree index, and all the tables are being constantly inserted into, would all the indexes have to be in memory, and would effectively start fighting for space?
You could make it a bit more efficient by grouping inserts up and doing batches for each table - if that's possible in your application.
Not with the current design :)
10k tables is a heck of a lot. That sort of thing often implies app design issues.
That may be. However, attempting to put all the data into the same table created problems with looking it up, and the fact that both write and read traffic hits the same table.
Why 10k tables? What do they do?
Realistically, that's a way to partition data. The tables have the same structure, but apply to different "partitions". If I am to use Postgres partitioning, would there be any difference? Considering that I would have to do almost exactly the same, with the inheritance and all?
Thank you!
--
Craig Ringer
