From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Lynna Landstreet <lynna(at)gallery44(dot)org>, <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Question regarding keyword checkboxes in database |
Date: | 2003-06-11 21:00:50 |
Message-ID: | 200306111400.50569.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Lynna,
> So maybe the join table idea is the better one of the two. It's just the
> size issue that worries me. I know there's theoretically no limit to the
> number of rows in a table, but in practice there's got to be a point when
> performance degrades noticeably...
Sure. But 130,000 rows in a two-INT-column table is not going to strain even
a workstation converted to server usage. I have an application of similar
size that does not just keyword matching, but relative scoring and weighting
based on data in external tables, and its performance is perfectly acceptable
( < 15 seconds including HTML rendering) on an IMac.
Second, remember that raw query performance is not the only kind of
performance you need to worry about. Any not-normalized database structure
carries with it a maintainence penalty of extra DBA time, down time, and
troubleshooting; often these issues far overshadow (especially in terms of
cost) any extra query time required for the normalized structure -- provided
that there is any extra, which often there's not.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robby Russell | 2003-06-12 00:29:10 | pg_restore ignore specific tables? |
Previous Message | radha.manohar | 2003-06-11 20:54:54 | Re: Tuples |