On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:48 PM, John R Pierce <pie...@hogranch.com> wrote: > On 7/27/2016 9:39 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> >> That depends on how how many objects there are consuming that 1 TB. >> With millions of small objects, you will have problems. Not as many >> in 9.5 as there were in 9.1, but still it does not scale linearly in >> the number of objects. If you only have thousands of objects, then as >> far as I know -k works like a charm. > > > millions of tables?
Well, it was a problem at much smaller values, until we fixed many of them. But the perversity is, if you are stuck on a version before the fixes, the problems prevent you from getting to a version on which it is not a problem any more. > thats akin to having millions of classes in an object > oriented program, seems a bit excessive. It is not outside the bounds of reason, in a multi-tenancy situation. Maybe you have a hundred tables and each table has two sequences and 7 indexes, on average. Or 300 tables and fewer indices apiece. But then you have 1000 schemas each with the same, ah, schema. I've pursued these optimizations as an intellectual exercise, but I know others have had more concrete motivations. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
