| From: | Wim <wdh(at)belbone(dot)be> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Sugrue, Sean" <Sean(dot)Sugrue(at)analog(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Big databases vs small databases |
| Date: | 2004-02-18 07:55:55 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.53.0402180848540.5928@tyr.car.belbone.be |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Hi Sean,
It depends on how your table is build. If it is a table without indexes
and constraints, it doesn't matter how big your DB is. It also depends on
how you insert them: an insert takes longer than a copy and if you use
insert it takes longer if you have autocommit enabled.
I have tables that I fill with the copy command. Those tables contain more
than 160 million records and it still goes quite fast.
I hope that I'm right, because these are only thoughts. I didn't perform
any tests. The specialists may correct me if I'm wrong :-)
If I'm right, it was my pleasure to help you :-)
Cheers!
Wim
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Sugrue, Sean wrote:
> Stupid question. Does it take longer to add records to a large database as oppose to a smaller one?
> Intuitively I would think so, but I just don't know reason. Has anyone performed any tests to find out
> if its a linear relationship or does it go up exponentially?
>
>
>
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wim | 2004-02-18 07:58:28 | Re: INSERT or COPY: Which one? |
| Previous Message | Sugrue, Sean | 2004-02-17 21:46:56 | Big databases vs small databases |