| From: | Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Rubin <jrubin(at)esoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Efficient Way to Merge Two Large Tables |
| Date: | 2010-07-13 22:22:15 |
| Message-ID: | 5E2BEA57-1A1A-485D-B443-163DD0E5BFA1@silentmedia.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Joshua Rubin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have two tables each with nearly 300M rows. There is a 1:1
> relationship between the two tables and they are almost always joined
> together in queries. The first table has many columns, the second has
> a foreign key to the primary key of the first table and one more
> column. It is expected that for every row in table1, there is a
> corresponding row in table2. We would like to just add the one column
> to the first table and drop the second table to allow us to index this
> extra column.
Stupid question before you do this: is there a reason the design was split like this? For instance, if the table with the id and the single field get updated a lot, while the other table almost never changes, maybe this design isn't so bad.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Rubin | 2010-07-13 22:54:22 | Re: Efficient Way to Merge Two Large Tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-07-13 21:38:43 | Re: Idle In Transaction |