> Orlando Giovanny Solarte Delgado wrote: >> I am designing a system that it takes information of several databases >> distributed in Interbase (RDBMS). It is a system web and each user can >> to do out near 50 consultations for session. I can have simultaneously >> around 100 users. Therefore I can have 5000 consultations >> simultaneously. Each consultation goes join to a space component in >> Postgis, therefore I need to store each consultation in PostgreSQL to >> be able to use all the capacity of PostGIS. The question is if for >> each consultation in execution time build a table in PostGRESQL I use >> it and then I erase it. Is a system efficient this way? Is it possible >> to have 5000 tables in PostGRESQL? How much performance? >> > Use TEMP tables. Hmm. To what degree do temp tables leave dead tuples lying around in pg_class, pg_attribute, and such? I expect that each one of these connections will leave a bunch of dead tuples lying around in the system tables. The system tables will need more vacuuming than if the data was placed in some set of more-persistent tables... None of this seems forcibly bad; you just need to be sure that you vacuum the right things :-). It is a big drag if system tables get filled with vast quantities of dead tuples; you can't do things like reindexing them without shutting down the postmaster. -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc")) http://linuxdatabases.info/info/x.html "Listen, strange women, lyin' in ponds, distributin' swords, is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives itself from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony." -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
