Re: Postgresql capabilities question

On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:33:46PM -0500, John Wells wrote:
> I have a M$ Sql Server db that I'm porting to postgresql. Approx. 24
> tables from this old db can be combined in the new database into one
> table, and it would be a bit more elegant to do this.
>
> However, the combined table would be around 95000 rows in size.
>
> Having never really used Postgresql in the past, and unable to find a
> datapoint on the web, I would really like to get input from current users.
> Is this an unreasonable table size to expect good performance when the
> PHP app driving it gets a reasonable amount of traffic? I know
> performance is also heavily dependent on indexes and query structure, but
> disregarding either of those for the sake of argument, would I be better
> off keeping the tables separate, or is 95000 not something to worry about?
> btw, most tables in this database are quite small (<2000). My redesign
> would create two tables in the +90000 range, but less than 100000.
>
> Thanks very much for your input.

I have a number of 1,000,000-plus row tables (very plus in some cases)
running on some nasty low-end (Celerons with 5400rpm IDE drives, Netras)
and performance is quite adequate for typical use.

Cheers,
Steve