On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Vedran Krivokuca <vkrivok...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Vedran Krivokuca <vkrivok...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 1) we can go with different instances of PostgreSQL service, let's say > > (for pure theory) 10 of them on the same HA cluster setup. Every > > instance would hold let's say 1/10th of that big recordset, and around > > 3.000 database tables (this apparently shouldn't be of any problem to > > PostgreSQL, see below). > > I am talking shit here, obviously, excuse me. We would go with, for > example, 10 or 100 databases in the same PostgreSQL instance. > Buzzwording got better of me. :) The rest of my initial e-mail still > applies, I will cherish any input of experience on this subject. > > > V. > > -- > Pozdrav/Greetings, > Vedran Krivokuća > Disclaimer: This message may contain information. > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin > I think that a limitation would be on the OS (filesystem and kernel) because each table is a file (or more) under a directory (per database). I haven't got experience on how modern Linux system cope with that but i think it would be something easy to test. Database wise you shouldn't have a problem.
