Re: Postgresql capabilities question

From: Ryan Mahoney <ryan(at)paymentalliance(dot)net>
To: John Wells <jb(at)sourceillustrated(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, ale(at)ale(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgresql capabilities question
Date: 2003-04-03 01:03:46
Message-ID: 1049331826.4174.49.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

You're absolutely correct that there are *many* other factors that
determine performance aside from row count. That being said, I have
table with over a million entries on actively used systems that perform
really well with queries utilize and index and acceptably well on
queries that require a sequential scan.

> Having never really used Postgresql in the past, and unable to find a
> datapoint on the web, I would really like to get input from current users.
> Is this an unreasonable table size to expect good performance when the
> PHP app driving it gets a reasonable amount of traffic? I know
> performance is also heavily dependent on indexes and query structure, but
> disregarding either of those for the sake of argument, would I be better
> off keeping the tables separate, or is 95000 not something to worry about?
> btw, most tables in this database are quite small (<2000). My redesign
> would create two tables in the +90000 range, but less than 100000.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve Atkins 2003-04-03 01:34:54 Re: Postgresql capabilities question
Previous Message David Wheeler 2003-04-03 00:37:01 ANNOUNCE: Bricolage-Devel 1.5.2