On Mar 23, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Subbiah, Stalin wrote:
And we also created rules to allow update, delete, and insert on those
views so that they looked like tables. The reason we did this is
because we ran into issues with too many open files during pg_dump
when
we had thousands of tables instead
We have a similarly sized database and we went with schemas. We did
something different, though, we created one schema that contained all
of the tables (we used the public schema) and then created the hundreds
of schemas with views that access only the related rows for a
particular schema.
And we also created rules to allow update, delete, and insert on those
views so that they looked like tables. The reason we did this is
because we ran into issues with too many open files during pg_dump when
we had thousands of tables instead of about 1 hundred tables and
thousands of views.
Subbiah, Stalin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it better to have 1000 databases vs 1000 schemas in a
database cluster.
You almost certainly want to go for schemas, at least from a performance
point of view. The overhead of a schema is small (basically one more
row in pg_namespace) whereas the
