On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Dale Betts <dale.betts@hssnet.com> wrote:
>
> I'd agree, certainly in my experiences.
>
> You need to ensure OS parameters such as the max open files (fs.file-max if we're talking
> Linux) is set appropriately. Baring in mind each user will have an open file on each
> underlying datafile for the databases they're connected to.
Ok, to reply to myself and other interested parties, further insights
are welcome!
I've been digging today for information on this subject and:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/GENERAL-Maximum-number-of-tables-per-database-and-slowness-td1853836.html
Basically saying: any number of tables is acceptable (well in range of
couple of tens of thousands we might end up with), but have in mind
pg_catalog might seriously grow with such number of tables.
Huge pg_catalog tends to slow down query planner. This thread is from
2005., but I doubt those fact changed substionally with time.
I'll probably do some testing, but I can hardly replicate production
volume of data. Seems that due to predictable nature of the queries we
are running against this system we'll go with multiple databases, each
containing up to couple thousand tables at most. Still weighting pros
and cons of each approach.
--
Pozdrav/Greetings,
Vedran Krivokuća
Disclaimer: This message may contain information.