From: Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>
To: Nicolas Beaume <nicolas.beaume@univ-nantes.fr>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: large table vs multiple smal tables
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:26:52 -0500
Message-ID: <20050714182651.GB92165@decibel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42D4E836.9020607@univ-nantes.fr>
References: <42D4E836.9020607@univ-nantes.fr>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 12:08:54PM +0200, Nicolas Beaume wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have a large database with 4 large tables (each containing at least
> 200 000 rows, perhaps even 1 or 2 million) and i ask myself if it's
> better to split them into small tables (e.g tables of 2000 rows) to
> speed the access and the update of those tables (considering that i will
> have few update but a lot of reading).
2 million rows is nothing unless you're on a 486 or something. As for
your other question, remember the first rule of performance tuning:
don't tune unless you actually need to.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: decibel@decibel.org, nicolas.beaume@univ-nantes.fr
Subject: Re: large table vs multiple smal tables
In-Reply-To: <20050714182651.GB92165@decibel.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox