X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D729DC869 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:38:17 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23871-02-4 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:38:16 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58CB19DCA30 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:38:15 -0400 (AST) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id AFF1C56431; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:38:14 -0600 (CST) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:38:13 -0600 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:38:13 -0600 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Merlin Moncure Cc: Jaime Casanova , "Craig A. James" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: update == delete + insert? Message-ID: <20060321173813.GE15742@pervasive.com> References: <7F10D26ECFA1FB458B89C5B4B0D72C2B088286@sesrv12.wirelesscar.com> <441EC652.1010807@modgraph-usa.com> <441F3187.90506@modgraph-usa.com> <20060321112348.GE15742@pervasive.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p4 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:mmoncure@gmail.com::kYQSgYhLONyi7pLC:0000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000004lur X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:systemguards@gmail.com::pcHmD0l1OPjkXR1i:000000000000000 0000000000000000000000005D9J X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:cjames@modgraph-usa.com::S8JorLgMvXVwUE8O:00000000000000 0000000000000000000000001uyH X-Hashcash: 1:20:060321:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::UNW2NNs6pgLArbHj:00000 0000000000000000000000002Mfa X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.108 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108] X-Spam-Score: 0.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/411 X-Sequence-Number: 17848 On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 09:12:08AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > > design 1 is normalized and better > > > design 2 is denormalized and a bad approach no matter the RDBMS > > > > How is design 1 denormalized? > > It isn't :)...he said it is normalized. Design 2 may or may not be > de-normalized (IMO there is not enough information to make that > determination) but as stated it's a good idea to split the table on > practical grounds. Err, sorry, got the number backwards. My point is that 2 isn't denormalized afaik, at least not based just on the example. But yes, in a case like this, vertical partitioning can make a lot of sense. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461