From: | "Harald Armin Massa" <haraldarminmassa(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joe Kramer" <cckramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Large database design advice |
Date: | 2006-08-24 16:21:01 |
Message-ID: | 7be3f35d0608240921j38b7f1fwb8c83691d2cd9d0c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Joe,
with a normal "serial", without "big", you can have
9.223.372.036.854.775.807 records individually numbered.
- Few tables but number of objects is tens-hundreds of thousands.
> - less than 100 queries per second.
so you are talking about 10*100*1000=1000000 in words one million records?
That is not very big.
>
>
> Table: item
> ---------------------
> account_id
> item_id
So you have a combined primary key for item? That is technically totally
correct, no problem.
Non the less I recommend to have a separate primary key column for item. As
you are starting with databases, some things will be easier to do without
having a combined key as primary.
How generally this design will hold up against this amount of data?
>
Insufficen data to parse "this amount" :) You did not give us any
information about how WIDE your rows are. Some million records are nothing
if there just hold social security numbers in them; they can get quite
stressfull if every row carries 3 blobs containing Videos.
Harald
--
GHUM Harald Massa
persuadere et programmare
Harald Armin Massa
Reinsburgstraße 202b
70197 Stuttgart
0173/9409607
-
Let's set so double the killer delete select all.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Farber | 2006-08-24 16:57:53 | Re: undefined reference to `PQprepare' with postgresql-dev 7.4.7-6sarge2 |
Previous Message | Bob Pawley | 2006-08-24 16:20:11 | Inserting Data |