Re: Large database design advice

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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