Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
| От | Vlad |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | cd70c6810612211201j5fbca0f6q2fa9053ac18aa372@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance? (Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance? |
| Список | pgsql-general |
On 12/21/06, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
if it's a web app with persistent connections, then splitting onto several databases may consume more RAM. Example: 100 apache clients connected to 3 databases creates 300 forked postmaster processes ; vs 100 apache clients connected to the same DB using three schemas only takes 100 postmasters
-- Vlad
>> Given the same physical hardware, which one is likely to perform better? Does
>> it make any difference? Does using separate databases use more RAM than a
>> single database with a bunch of different tables?
Config files are global, so I doubt it.
if it's a web app with persistent connections, then splitting onto several databases may consume more RAM. Example: 100 apache clients connected to 3 databases creates 300 forked postmaster processes ; vs 100 apache clients connected to the same DB using three schemas only takes 100 postmasters
-- Vlad
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: