From: | Ryan Mahoney <ryan(at)paymentalliance(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | John Wells <jb(at)sourceillustrated(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, ale(at)ale(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgresql capabilities question |
Date: | 2003-04-03 01:03:46 |
Message-ID: | 1049331826.4174.49.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
You're absolutely correct that there are *many* other factors that
determine performance aside from row count. That being said, I have
table with over a million entries on actively used systems that perform
really well with queries utilize and index and acceptably well on
queries that require a sequential scan.
> Having never really used Postgresql in the past, and unable to find a
> datapoint on the web, I would really like to get input from current users.
> Is this an unreasonable table size to expect good performance when the
> PHP app driving it gets a reasonable amount of traffic? I know
> performance is also heavily dependent on indexes and query structure, but
> disregarding either of those for the sake of argument, would I be better
> off keeping the tables separate, or is 95000 not something to worry about?
> btw, most tables in this database are quite small (<2000). My redesign
> would create two tables in the +90000 range, but less than 100000.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Atkins | 2003-04-03 01:34:54 | Re: Postgresql capabilities question |
Previous Message | David Wheeler | 2003-04-03 00:37:01 | ANNOUNCE: Bricolage-Devel 1.5.2 |