Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Craig James
Subject Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date
Msg-id 4666EF9D.90500@emolecules.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?  (Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>)
Responses Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
List pgsql-performance
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> OTOH, there are some things, like importing data, which are MUCH faster
> in pgsql than in the big database.

An excellent point, I forgot about this. The COPY command is the best thing since the invention of a shirt pocket.  We
havea database-per-customer design, and one of the mosterous advantages of Postgres is that we can easily do backups.
Apg_dump, then scp to a backup server, and in just a minute or two we have a full backup.  For recovery, pg_restore is
equallyfast and amazing.  Last time I checked, Oracle didn't have anything close to this. 

Craig



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Next
From: "Jonah H. Harris"
Date:
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?