From: Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: schema design question
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:42:34 +0200
Message-ID: <20070819204234.GA25727@uio.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070819184115.GL28490@fetter.org>
References: <ea41f7570708190619u6daf7cep96430d20566d6159@mail.gmail.com>
<20070819181216.GK28490@fetter.org>
<20070819182658.GC25214@uio.no>
<20070819184115.GL28490@fetter.org>
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 11:41:15AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> Unless your records are huge, that's a tiny database, where tiny is
> defined to mean that the whole thing fits in main memory with plenty
> of room to spare. I guarantee that performance will crash right
> through the floor as soon as any table no longer fits in main memory.
Sure, it fits into memory; however, it isn't used so often, though, so it's
frequently not in the cache when it's needed. You are completely right in
that it's much slower from disk than from RAM :-)
The question is, of course, how to best store something like the EXIF
information _without_ using EAV. I could separate out the few fields I
normally use into a horizontal (ie. standard relational) table, but it seems
sort of... lossy? Another possible approach is to keep the EAV table around
for completeness in addition to the few fields I need, but then you do of
course get into normalization issues.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
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: sgunderson@bigfoot.com
Subject: Re: schema design question
In-Reply-To: <20070819204234.GA25727@uio.no>
* 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