I don't really know what you're trying to accomplish here, but dropping and
creating thousands of tables is never a good idea with any database system.
You can certainly do that, just don't expect any query to run at their best
performance. You'd need to at least do a vacuum before starting to query
those tables.
Can't you just leave the tables alone and populate them with records?
Looks like a bad design to me when you have to drop/create tables as part of
the regular operations.
On Monday 16 January 2006 09:10, Orlando Giovanny Solarte Delgado wrote:
> I am designing a system that it takes information of several databases
> distributed in Interbase (RDBMS). 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?
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
>
>
> Orlando Giovanny Solarte Delgado
>
> Ingeniero en Electrónica y Telecomunicaciones
>
> Universidad del Cauca, Popayan. Colombia.
>
> E-mail Aux: orlandos@gmail.com
--
UC
--
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 1618 Kelly St
Phone: +1 707 568 3056 Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax: +1 707 568 6416