Re: large table vs multiple smal tables

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
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: 2005-07-14 18:26:52
Message-ID: 20050714182651.GB92165@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

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).

2 million rows is nothing unless you're on a 486 or something. As for
your other question, remember the first rule of performance tuning:
don't tune unless you actually need to.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-07-14 18:29:48 Re: JFS fastest filesystem for PostgreSQL?
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2005-07-14 16:37:42 Re: lots of updates on small table