On Monday 23 June 2008 15:45:22 Kynn Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In real use you're unlikely to hit any limits, theoretical or practical, > > but if you start to use a silly number of tables and so on you're likely > > to hit performance issues eventually. I'm not sure where that threshold > > would be, but it's higher than "thousands". > > Actually, the DB I have in mind would certainly be approaching "silly > territory." I'm looking at a schema with around 10 thousand tables (or > views). Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, > http://www.postgresql.org/about/ says nothing about maximum number of > tables. I suppose I could always find what this limit is "the hard way", > by writing a script that just keeps creating empty tables and see where > that goes, but I'd prefer not to do something like this... >
http://people.planetpostgresql.org/greg/index.php?/archives/37-The-million-table-challenge.html -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
