Re: large table vs multiple smal tables

From: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)it(dot)is(dot)rice(dot)edu>
To: Nicolas Beaume <nicolas(dot)beaume(at)univ-nantes(dot)fr>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: large table vs multiple smal tables
Date: 2005-07-13 12:33:05
Message-ID: 20050713123305.GB17225@it.is.rice.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nicolas Beaume 2005-07-13 13:55:52 (pas de sujet)
Previous Message Nicolas Beaume 2005-07-13 10:08:54 large table vs multiple smal tables