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

Re: Big databases vs small databases

From: Wim <wdh(at)belbone(dot)be>
To: "Sugrue, Sean" <Sean(dot)Sugrue(at)analog(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Big databases vs small databases
Date: 2004-02-18 07:55:55
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.53.0402180848540.5928@tyr.car.belbone.be (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice
Hi Sean,

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 :-)

Cheers!

Wim

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

Responses

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: WimDate: 2004-02-18 07:58:28
Subject: Re: INSERT or COPY: Which one?
Previous:From: Sugrue, SeanDate: 2004-02-17 21:46:56
Subject: Big databases vs small databases

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