Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 20:26:58 +0200
From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
Cc: mark overmeer <markovermeer@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: schema design question
Message-ID: <20070819182658.GC25214@uio.no>
Mail-Followup-To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>,
	mark overmeer <markovermeer@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: <ea41f7570708190619u6daf7cep96430d20566d6159@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070819181216.GK28490@fetter.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070819181216.GK28490@fetter.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11)

On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 11:12:16AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> There's your mistake.  EAV is not performant, and won't become so.

It sort of depends. I put all the EXIF information for my image gallery into
an EAV table -- it was the most logical format at the time, although I'm not
sure I need all the information. Anyhow, with clustering and indexes,
Postgres zips through the five million records easily enough for my use -- at
least fast enough that I can live with it without feeling the need for a
redesign.

As a general database design paradigm, though, I fully agree with you.
Databases are databases, not glorified OO data stores or hash tables.

/* Steinar */
-- 
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/