Re: Many fields in one table or many tables?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: "Alexander Priem" <ap(at)cict(dot)nl>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Many fields in one table or many tables?
Date: 2003-09-18 18:20:33
Message-ID: 1008.1063909233@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Suggestion 3: There was an issue in 7.3 with table rows which are overly broad
> -- some problems with PSQL, I believe.

Not sure about PSQL, but I think there still are some performance issues
in the backend with SELECTs involving more than a couple hundred
targetlist entries. These are probably fixable at not-very-large effort
but we haven't made any consistent push to find and fix the trouble
spots. The issues that I recall are O(N^2) problems (doubly nested
loops) so the performance with ~100 entries is no problem but it gets
rapidly worse above that. You could hit this even with ~100-column
tables if you try to select all columns from a join of two or more.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message LN Cisneros 2003-09-18 19:27:23 Re: rewrite in to exists?
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2003-09-18 18:02:10 Re: How to force an Index ?