| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marcin Krol <mrkafk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: The REAL cost of joins |
| Date: | 2010-03-04 11:48:41 |
| Message-ID: | 4B8F9E19.2000408@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 4/03/2010 4:47 PM, Richard Huxton wrote:
> On 03/03/10 21:59, Marcin Krol wrote:
>> What do you think of this? And in general: when (if?) should one
>> denormalize data?
>
> As a last resort. No sooner.
>
> The support costs of denormalising your database is such that if you can
> reasonably just buy more hardware / add caching / etc, do so.
Well, materialized views are a denormalization of sorts, and a really
useful one - but they're not the authorative store of the data.
Things like views, materialized views, trigger-maintained side tables
etc are what you should look at before even considering denormalizing
your main data storage.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-03-04 11:53:40 | Re: Failed to run initdb: 128 |
| Previous Message | John Moran | 2010-03-04 10:25:57 | Re: Larger volumes of chronologically ordered data and the planner |