> Orlando Giovanny Solarte Delgado wrote:
>> I am designing a system that it takes information of several databases
>> distributed in Interbase (RDBMS). It is a system web and each user can
>> to do out near 50 consultations for session. I can have simultaneously
>> around 100 users. Therefore I can have 5000 consultations
>> simultaneously. Each consultation goes join to a space component in
>> Postgis, therefore I need to store each consultation in PostgreSQL to
>> be able to use all the capacity of PostGIS. The question is if for
>> each consultation in execution time build a table in PostGRESQL I use
>> it and then I erase it. Is a system efficient this way? Is it possible
>> to have 5000 tables in PostGRESQL? How much performance?
>>
> Use TEMP tables.
Hmm. To what degree do temp tables leave dead tuples lying around in
pg_class, pg_attribute, and such?
I expect that each one of these connections will leave a bunch of dead
tuples lying around in the system tables. The system tables will need
more vacuuming than if the data was placed in some set of
more-persistent tables...
None of this seems forcibly bad; you just need to be sure that you
vacuum the right things :-).
It is a big drag if system tables get filled with vast quantities of
dead tuples; you can't do things like reindexing them without shutting
down the postmaster.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/x.html
"Listen, strange women, lyin' in ponds, distributin' swords, is no
basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives
itself from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic
ceremony." -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
