From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Denormalization WAS: Low Performance for big hospital server .. |
Date: | 2005-01-06 17:38:45 |
Message-ID: | 200501060938.45688.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Frank,
> Now that's rich. I don't think I've ever seen a database perform
> worse after it was normalized. In fact, I can't even think of a
> situation where it could!
Oh, there are some. For example, Primer's issues around his dating
database; it turned out that a fully normalized design resulted in very bad
select performance because of the number of joins involved. Of course, the
method that did perform well was *not* a simple denormalization, either.
The issue with denormalization is, I think, that a lot of developers cut their
teeth on the likes of MS Access, Sybase 2 or Informix 1.0, where a
poor-performing join often didn't complete at all. As a result, they got
into the habit of "preemptive tuning"; that is, doing things "for performance
reasons" when the system was still in the design phase, before they even know
what the performance issues *were*.
Not that this was a good practice even then, but the average software project
allocates grossly inadequate time for testing, so you can see how it became a
bad habit. And most younger DBAs learn their skills on the job from the
older DBAs, so the misinformation gets passed down.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2005-01-06 17:51:14 | Re: Low Performance for big hospital server .. |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-01-06 17:35:33 | Re: Low Performance for big hospital server .. |