>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
>
