Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:26:52 -0500
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
Message-ID: <20050714182651.GB92165@decibel.org>
References: <42D4E836.9020607@univ-nantes.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42D4E836.9020607@univ-nantes.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

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?"