Re: One large v. many small

From: "Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: One large v. many small
Date: 2003-01-31 06:27:40
Message-ID: 200301311157.40351.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-performance

On Thursday 30 Jan 2003 11:54 pm, you wrote:
> As I mentioned in our earlier post, we are attempting to decide if
> Postgres will run faster/better/ with one big table, or a bunch of
> smaller ones. It really doesn't make much difference to us, we just
> want whatever structure will be faster.

I would say create a big table with client id. Create a index on it and create
3000 views. Of course you need to figure out SQL voodoo to insert into
postgresql views using rules.

But that would save you from modifying your app. up and down. But there is
going to be massive framgmentation. Consider clustering tables once in a
while.

HTH

Shridhar

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> 2003-01-31 06:33:40 Re: Documentation needs significant improvement
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-01-31 06:00:45 Re: 2D arrays in 7.3... actually, parser bug?

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff 2003-01-31 13:01:24 Re: [PERFORM] One large v. many small
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2003-01-31 05:55:40 Re: One large v. many small