On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:11 AM, S Arvind <arvindw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Robert, > > So for our scenario what is the most important factor to be > noted > > for performance. > > Tough to say without benchmarking, but if you have a lot of small > databases that easily fit in RAM, and a lot of concurrent connections, > I would think you'd want to spend your hardware $ on maximizing the > number of cores. > > But there are many in this forum who have much more experience with > these things than me, so take that with a grain of salt... > > (You might also want to look at consolidating some of those databases > - maybe use one database with multiple schemas - that would probably > help performance significantly.) > > I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind it! As long as they are different objects, how would it help performance if tables are stored in separate schema, or in separate databases; or are you referring to the difference in size of system tables and the performance improvement resulting from keeping all metadata in a single catalog. Best regards, -- Lets call it Postgres gurjeet[.sin...@enterprisedb.com EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com singh.gurj...@{ gmail | yahoo }.com Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
