Christopher Browne wrote:
>> Orlando Giovanny Solarte Delgado wrote:
>>> It is a system web and each user can
>>> to do out near 50 consultations for session. I can have simultaneously
>>> around 100 users. Therefore I can have 5000 consultations
>>> simultaneously. Each consultation goes join to a space component in
>>> Postgis, therefore I need to store each consultation in PostgreSQL to
>>> be able to use all the capacity of PostGIS. The question is if for
>>> each consultation in execution time build a table in PostGRESQL I use
>>> it and then I erase it. Is a system efficient this way? Is it possible
>>> to have 5000 tables in PostGRESQL? How much performance?
>> Use TEMP tables.
> Hmm. To what degree do temp tables leave dead tuples lying around in
> pg_class, pg_attribute, and such?
> I expect that each one of these connections will leave a bunch of dead
> tuples lying around in the system tables. The system tables will need
> more vacuuming than if the data was placed in some set of
> more-persistent tables...
> None of this seems forcibly bad; you just need to be sure that you
> vacuum the right things :-).
Since there is pg_autovacuum you don't need to think about it.
--
Wbr, Sergey Moiseev
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
