It depends on how your table is build. If it is a table without indexes
and constraints, it doesn't matter how big your DB is. It also depends on
how you insert them: an insert takes longer than a copy and if you use
insert it takes longer if you have autocommit enabled.
I have tables that I fill with the copy command. Those tables contain more
than 160 million records and it still goes quite fast.
I hope that I'm right, because these are only thoughts. I didn't perform
any tests. The specialists may correct me if I'm wrong :-)
If I'm right, it was my pleasure to help you :-)
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Sugrue, Sean wrote:
> Stupid question. Does it take longer to add records to a large database as oppose to a smaller one?
> Intuitively I would think so, but I just don't know reason. Has anyone performed any tests to find out
> if its a linear relationship or does it go up exponentially?
In response to
pgsql-novice by date
|Next:||From: Wim||Date: 2004-02-18 07:58:28|
|Subject: Re: INSERT or COPY: Which one?|
|Previous:||From: Sugrue, Sean||Date: 2004-02-17 21:46:56|
|Subject: Big databases vs small databases|