On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:31:45PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> This is based on our current 150 databases times 20 tables, or 3000 tables
>> total. But I wasn't sure if sequences count as "relations", which would
>> double the number.
> They don't because they don't have free space.
OTOH, i
Craig A. James wrote:
> This is based on our current 150 databases times 20 tables, or 3000 tables
> total. But I wasn't sure if sequences count as "relations", which would
> double the number.
They don't because they don't have free space.
--
Alvaro Herreraht
A few months ago a couple guys got "bragging rights" for having the most
separate databases. A couple guys claimed several hundred databases and one said he had
several thousand databases. The concensus was that Postgres has no problem handling many
separate databases.
I took that to heart a
