Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:40 -0400, Thomas Andrews wrote:
> I have several thousand clients. Our clients do surveys, and each survey
> has two tables for the client data,
>
> responders
> responses
>
> Frequent inserts into both table.
>
> Right now, we are seeing significant time during inserts to these two
> tables.

Can you provide some concrete numbers here? Perhaps an EXPLAIN ANALYZE
for the insert, sizes of tables, stuff like that?

> Some of the indices in tableA and tableB do not index on the client ID
> first.

What reason do you have to think that this matters?

> So, we are considering two possible solutions.
>
> (1) Create separate responders and responses tables for each client.
>
> (2) Make sure all indices on responders and responses start with the
> client id (excepting, possibly, the primary keys for these fields) and
> have all normal operation queries always include an id_client.
>
> Right now, for example, given a responder and a survey question, we do a
> query in responses by the id_responder and id_survey. This gives us a
> unique record, but I'm wondering if maintaining the index on
> (id_responder,id_survey) is more costly on inserts than maintaining the
> index (id_client,id_responder,id_survey) given that we also have other
> indices on (id_client,...).
>
> Option (1) makes me very nervous. I don't like the idea of the same sorts
> of data being stored in lots of different tables, in part for long-term
> maintenance reasons. We don't really need cross-client reporting, however.

What version of PG is this? What is your vacuuming strategy? Have you
tried a REINDEX to see if that helps?

-- Mark Lewis