Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9E264FF27 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:06:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 47224-09 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:06:11 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from pih-relay08.plus.net (pih-relay08.plus.net [212.159.14.134]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D3CE64FD13 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:06:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [84.51.143.99] (helo=server3.office.archonet.com) by pih-relay08.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1KKtDY-0005GA-Ln; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:06:12 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.36] (dell36.office.archonet.com [192.168.1.36]) by server3.office.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2ED3274062; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:06:11 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <48846DA3.2090308@archonet.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:06:11 +0100 From: Richard Huxton User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Hartmann CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Less rows -> better performance? References: <48846A02.7090702@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <48846A02.7090702@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Plusnet-Relay: 0b88d9c599bcac9e5df50b58f0a7c6e7 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200807/173 X-Sequence-Number: 30773 Andreas Hartmann wrote: > Dear PostgreSQL community, > > first some info about our application: > > - Online course directory for a University > - Amount of data: complete dump is 27 MB > - Semester is part of primary key in each table > - Data for approx. 10 semesters stored in the DB > - Read-only access from web application (JDBC) > > Our client has asked us if the performance of the application could be > improved by moving the data from previous years to a separate "archive" > application. If you had 27GB of data maybe, but you've only got 27MB - that's presumably all sitting in memory. What in particular is slow? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd