Richard Huxton wrote:
On 26/02/10 12:45, elias ghanem wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your answer,
Concerning the second point, each db have different table that are
logically
related (for ex, tables for configuration, tables for business...)
plus I'm
planning to put the indexes on their own tablespaces.
Concerning the disks I will maybe stored on multiple disks (but surely
not
200-300). So I'm just wondering If this big number of tablespaces on a
same
db server may cause problems,
If the tablespaces aren't on different disks, I'm not sure what the
point is.
Our policy is that *every* database has its own tablespace. It doesn't cost
you anything, and it gives you great flexibility if you add new disks. You can
easily move an entire database, or a bunch of databases, by just moving the
data pointing to the new location with symlinks. Once you put a bunch of
databases into a single tablespace, moving subsets of them becomes very
difficult.
It also makes it really easy to find who is using resources.
We operate about 450 databases spread across several servers. Postgres has no
trouble at all managing hundreds of databases.
Craig
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
