Re: [ADMIN] Databases Vs. Schemas
От | Subbiah, Stalin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [ADMIN] Databases Vs. Schemas |
Дата | |
Msg-id | F1F84A2E5F9EBD46A9BDB905EB5B103937C0@mxca1.netopia.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [ADMIN] Databases Vs. Schemas
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
>And we also created rules to allow update, delete, and insert on those >views so that they looked like tables. The reason we did this is >because we ran into issues with too many open files during pg_dump when >we had thousands of tables instead of about 1 hundred tables and >thousands of views. Is it because you had smaller value set for max. allowable number of open files descriptor. what was ulimit -a set to ? >We, however, did have a need to periodically select data from 2 schemas >at a time, and it was simpler logic than if we needed 2 database >connections. Adam Ruth On Mar 22, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Subbiah, Stalin wrote: > --sorry to repost, just subscribed to the list. hopefully it gets to > the > list this time -- > > Hi All, > > We are evaluating the options for having multiple databases vs. > schemas on a > single database cluster for a custom grown app that we developed. Each > app > installs same set of tables for each service. And the service could > easily > be in thousands. so Is it better to have 1000 databases vs 1000 > schemas in a > database cluster. What are the performance overhead of having multiple > databases vs. schemas (if any). I'm leaning towards having schemas > rather > than databases but i would like to get others opinion on this. > Appreciate > your reply. > > Thanks, > Stalin > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: