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
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? |
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 |