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

Re: One large v. many small (fwd)

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: One large v. many small (fwd)
Date: 2003-01-31 18:44:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance

> so after a week of engineering and futzing we had things under control..
> (db changes, massive app changes (agressive caching))
> Yes it was horrid to throw out RI (which caused some minor issues
> later) but when the business is riding on it.. you make it work any way
> you can.  In a perfect world I would have done it another way, but when
> the site is down (read: your business is not running, you are losing large
> amounts of money) you need to put on your fire fighter suit, not your lab
> coat.

Actually, I'd say this is  a great example of what I'm advocating.  You 
started out with a "correct" design, from an RDBMS perspective, and 
compromised on it only when the performance issues became insurmountable.  
That sounds like a good approach to me.

-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Don BowmanDate: 2003-01-31 21:12:38
Subject: not using index for select min(...)
Previous:From: JeffDate: 2003-01-31 18:19:36
Subject: Re: One large v. many small (fwd)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group