vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| Ok, thanks for the limits info, but I have that in the manual. Thanks. But what I really want to know is this: 1) All large objects of all tables inside one DATABASE is kept on only one table. True or false? Thanks =o) Rodrigo On 10/25/05, Nörder-Tuitje, Marcus <noerder-tuitje@technology.de> wrote: > > oh, btw, no harm, but : > having 5000 tables only to gain access via city name is a major design > flaw. > you might consider putting all into one table working with a distributed > index over yer table (city, loc_texdt, blobfield); creating a partitioned > index over city. > best regards > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > *Von:* pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org [mailto: > pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org]*Im Auftrag von *Rodrigo Madera > *Gesendet:* Montag, 24. Oktober 2005 21:12 > *An:* pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > *Betreff:* Re: [PERFORM] Inefficient escape codes. > > Now this interests me a lot. > > Please clarify this: > > I have 5000 tables, one for each city: > > City1_Photos, City2_Photos, ... City5000_Photos. > > Each of these tables are: CREATE TABLE CityN_Photos (location text, lo_id > largeobectypeiforgot) > > So, what's the limit for these large objects? I heard I could only have 4 > billion records for the whole database (not for each table). Is this true? > If this isn't true, then would postgres manage to create all the large > objects I ask him to? > > Also, this would be a performance penalty, wouldn't it? > > Much thanks for the knowledge shared, > Rodrigo > > > |