Re: [PERFORM] large table vs multiple smal tables
Nicolas, These sizes would not be considered large. I would leave them as single tables. Ken 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). > > Do you think it would be efficient ? > > Nicolas, wondering if he hadn't be too greedy > > -- > > - > ? soyez ce que vous voudriez avoir l'air d'?tre ? Lewis Caroll > > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [PERFORM] large table vs multiple smal tables
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?" ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
[PERFORM] large table vs multiple smal tables
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). Do you think it would be efficient ? Nicolas, wondering if he hadn't be too greedy -- - « soyez ce que vous voudriez avoir l'air d'être » Lewis Caroll ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
