Hi, Gregory,
Gregory S. Williamson wrote:
> A sodden late night idea ... schemas don't need to have names that
> are meaningful to outsiders.
Yes, but having schema names like A34FZ37 not only qualifies for
thedailywtf.com, but also tends to produce maintainance nightmares.
And it still allows t
lobeXplorer LLC
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Markus Schaber
Sent: Wed 7/5/2006 3:38 AM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Is postgresql ca do the job for software deployed
in
Hi, Mikael,
Just my 2 cents:
Mikael Carneh
Hi, Mikael,
Just my 2 cents:
Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> Do you really need to create one *DB* per client - that is, is one
> schema (in the same DB) per client out of the question?
Sometimes, schemas would work _technically_, but not politically, as a
postgresql user cannot be prevented from list
Mikael Carneholm wrote:
For my application there is very little info I can share. Maybe less
than 10 on 100 actually so I not sure it worth it ...
Ok, so 90% of the tables are being written to - this either means that
your application uses very little constants, or that it has access to
c
> For my application there is very little info I can share. Maybe less
than 10 on 100 actually so I not sure it worth it ...
Ok, so 90% of the tables are being written to - this either means that
your application uses very little constants, or that it has access to
constans that are stored somewh
Hi All,
First thanks for your help everyone!
Mikael Carneholm wrote:
Do you really need to create one *DB* per client - that is, is one
schema (in the same DB) per client out of the question? If not, I would
look into moving all reference tables (read-only data, constants and
such) into a
Do you really need to create one *DB* per client - that is, is one
schema (in the same DB) per client out of the question? If not, I would
look into moving all reference tables (read-only data, constants and
such) into a common schema (with read permission granted to each
client/role), that way red
thanks.
Regards,
Guoping
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Chris
HooverSent: 2006Äê7ÔÂ4ÈÕ 3:20To: David
GagnonCc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.orgSubject: Re:
[PERFORM] Is postgresql ca do the job for software deployed in
Richard Broersma Jr wrote:
Each table with-in the database is assigned an OID and is located inside the DB
directory. So if
there is a file-system limitation on the number of files with-in a given
directory it would also
be a limit to the number of tables that could be created for each databas
On 7/3/06, David Gagnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can I hope having several hundred of db on 1 db server? Like 250 dbs =250 client = 360 000 tables !!!So is there a limit for the number of db in the db server ?(this spec isnot on the website)What about the performance? Can I expect to have the sa
> Typically I will have 1db per client and around 150 tables per db. So
> since I hope I didn`t work all those year for nothing .. I expect to
> have bunch of clients witch means the same amount of db since I have 1
> db/client.
>
> Can I hope having several hundred of db on 1 db server? Lik
11 matches
Mail list logo
