| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mel Jamero <mel(at)gmanmi(dot)tv> |
| Cc: | 'Dani Oderbolz' <oderbolz(at)ecologic(dot)de>, 'pgsql-novice' <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: sql question (hopefully) |
| Date: | 2003-06-18 14:37:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20030618143744.GC20256@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 22:40:49 +0800,
Mel Jamero <mel(at)gmanmi(dot)tv> wrote:
>
> The reason why I didn't normalize was because i would've ended up with
> millions of tuples and the reply from the database would be too slow for the
> application(s) we built. I tried to come up with a better schema but I
> couldn't find one that really returns a fast reply so I settled with the one
> i presented.
>
> I did break other rules of proper Relational Analysis and Design for the
> sake of fast replies we needed. I'll send it to this list in the future to
> get better ideas. I just have to solve our current problem.
Did you actually test both the normalized and denormalized versions to see
which is faster?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mel Jamero | 2003-06-18 14:40:49 | Re: sql question (hopefully) |
| Previous Message | Mel Jamero | 2003-06-18 14:30:45 | Re: sql question (hopefully) |