Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
- From: "Albe Laurenz" <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at>
- To: "Ron Johnson *EXTERN*" <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:38:35 +0200
Ron Johnson wrote: > Does PG set up buffers at the postmaster level or the database level? > > If at the database level, then you'll be allocating memory to > databases that might not be in use at any one time, thus wasting it. > One database buffer pool would make more efficient use of RAM. Shared memory is allocated at the cluster level. See http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-resource.ht ml#RUNTIME-CONFIG-RESOURCE-MEMORY Yours, Laurenz Albe
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
- From: Ron Johnson
- Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
- References:
- hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
- From: olivier
- Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
- From: Albe Laurenz
- Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
- From: Ron Johnson
- hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
- Prev by Date: Re: SELECT <all fields except "bad_field"> from mytbl;
- Next by Date: Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
- Previous by thread: Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
- Next by thread: Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
- Indexes: