Re: [HACKERS] Schema Limitations ?
От | Chris Broussard |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Schema Limitations ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7895F93E-72CE-4E14-BA93-FC2D0E8F7A09@liquiddatainc.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Schema Limitations ? ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Thanks Jim for the interesting information. in theory what Is the best method (clustering software, or regular postgresql configuration ?) to spread/partition schemas between physical machines within a single database? Is it even possible?? I have been using postgres for many years, and the vanilla type install / configuration has always suited my development & production needs... currently, i have separate databases that i can obviously scale by having different database servers, and i have j2ee application servers that sits in front of postgres to manage/synchronize the relationships between the databases. I'm thinking I can possibly gain efficiencies and simplify the application logic by collapsing the data into one database, and sharing the sharable data through a "shareable" schema, and each deployed application into it's own schema... how are other people scaling out ? just wondering what other people think is the best approach ? thanks, Chris On May 30, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > Moving to -general, where this belongs. > > On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 11:13:58PM -0500, Chris Broussard wrote: >> Hello Hackers, >> >> I have the following questions, after reading this FAQ (http:// >> www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html#item4.4) are there statistics >> around the max number of schemas in a database, max number of tables >> In a schema, and max number of tables in a database (number that >> spans schemas) ? Are the only limitations based on disk & ram/swap ? > > One hard limit you'll run into is OIDs, which max at either 2^31 or > 2^32 > (I can't remember offhand which it is). That would be number of > schemas, > and number of total tables (there's a unique index on pg_class.oid). > Actually, you'll be limited to 2 or 4 billion tables, indexes, and > views. > > In reality, I suspect you'll become very unhappy with performance well > before those numbers. Running a database with just 10000 tables can > be a > bit tricky, though it's certainly doable. > >> Does anybody have a rough ballpark figures of the largest install >> base on those questions? >> >> I'm curious about these stats, because I'm debating on how best to >> break up data, between schemas, physical separate databases, and the >> combination of the two. >> >> Thanks In Advanced. >> >> Chris >> >> ---------------------------(end of >> broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >> > > -- > Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com > Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 > vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: