On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 09:12:08AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > design 1 is normalized and better
> > > design 2 is denormalized and a bad approach no matter the RDBMS
> > How is design 1 denormalized?
> It isn't :)...he said it is normalized. Design 2 may or may not be
> de-normalized (IMO there is not enough information to make that
> determination) but as stated it's a good idea to split the table on
> practical grounds.
Err, sorry, got the number backwards. My point is that 2 isn't
denormalized afaik, at least not based just on the example. But yes, in
a case like this, vertical partitioning can make a lot of sense.
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Scott Marlowe||Date: 2006-03-21 17:44:40|
|Subject: Re: Postmaster using only 4-5% CPU|
|Previous:||From: Guillaume Smet||Date: 2006-03-21 16:57:54|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Xeon MP|