Re: 15,000 tables - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Michael Riess
Subject Re: 15,000 tables
Date
Msg-id dmn6tm$1n9n$1@news.hub.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 15,000 tables  (Jaime Casanova <systemguards@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: 15,000 tables
List pgsql-performance
Hi,


> On 12/1/05, Michael Riess <mlriess@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> we are currently running a postgres server (upgraded to 8.1) which has
>> one large database with approx. 15,000 tables. Unfortunately performance
>> suffers from that, because the internal tables (especially that which
>> holds the attribute info) get too large.
>>
>> (We NEED that many tables, please don't recommend to reduce them)
>>
>
> Have you ANALYZEd your database? VACUUMing?

Of course ... before 8.1 we routinely did a vacuum full analyze each
night. As of 8.1 we use autovacuum.

>
> BTW, are you using some kind of weird ERP? I have one that treat
> informix as a fool and don't let me get all of informix potential...
> maybe the same is in your case...

No. Our database contains tables for we content management systems. The
server hosts approx. 500 cms applications, and each of them has approx.
30 tables.

That's why I'm asking if it was better to have 500 databases with 30
tables each. In previous Postgres versions this led to even worse
performance ...

Mike

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump slow
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Queries taking ages in PG 8.1, have been much faster in PG<=8.0