Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: update == delete + insert?

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>,"Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: update == delete + insert?
Date: 2006-03-21 17:38:13
Message-ID: 20060321173813.GE15742@pervasive.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
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 MarloweDate: 2006-03-21 17:44:40
Subject: Re: Postmaster using only 4-5% CPU
Previous:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2006-03-21 16:57:54
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Xeon MP

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group