From: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: schema design question |
Date: | 2007-08-19 20:42:34 |
Message-ID: | 20070819204234.GA25727@uio.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 11:41:15AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> Unless your records are huge, that's a tiny database, where tiny is
> defined to mean that the whole thing fits in main memory with plenty
> of room to spare. I guarantee that performance will crash right
> through the floor as soon as any table no longer fits in main memory.
Sure, it fits into memory; however, it isn't used so often, though, so it's
frequently not in the cache when it's needed. You are completely right in
that it's much slower from disk than from RAM :-)
The question is, of course, how to best store something like the EXIF
information _without_ using EAV. I could separate out the few fields I
normally use into a horizontal (ie. standard relational) table, but it seems
sort of... lossy? Another possible approach is to keep the EAV table around
for completeness in addition to the few fields I need, but then you do of
course get into normalization issues.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Leon Mergen | 2007-08-19 21:49:02 | Re: [PERFORM] Looking for database hosting |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2007-08-19 20:23:34 | Re: schema design question |