> so after a week of engineering and futzing we had things under control..
> (db changes, massive app changes (agressive caching))
> Yes it was horrid to throw out RI (which caused some minor issues
> later) but when the business is riding on it.. you make it work any way
> you can. In a perfect world I would have done it another way, but when
> the site is down (read: your business is not running, you are losing large
> amounts of money) you need to put on your fire fighter suit, not your lab
Actually, I'd say this is a great example of what I'm advocating. You
started out with a "correct" design, from an RDBMS perspective, and
compromised on it only when the performance issues became insurmountable.
That sounds like a good approach to me.
Aglio Database Solutions
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Don Bowman||Date: 2003-01-31 21:12:38|
|Subject: not using index for select min(...)|
|Previous:||From: Jeff||Date: 2003-01-31 18:19:36|
|Subject: Re: One large v. many small (fwd)|