Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Shoaib Mir
Subject Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
Date
Msg-id bf54be870612211214o596fe50cv275bd94234ab66e5@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?  (Vlad <marchenko@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
I will also second that and if you got a lot of data, go for table partitioning as well but will not recommend dividing into different databases.

-----------------
Shoaib Mir
EnterpriseDB ( www.enterprisedb.com)

On 12/22/06, Vlad <marchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/21/06, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:

>> 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

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Marc Evans
Date:
Subject: Re: Partitioning Vs. Split Databases - performance?
Next
From: "Brandon Aiken"
Date:
Subject: Re: RESTORING A DATABASE WITH DIFFERENT TIMEZONES