From: | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <mail(at)webthatworks(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: still on joining array/inline values was and is: design, ref integrity and performance |
Date: | 2009-10-28 15:48:35 |
Message-ID: | 20091028164835.7f60c708@dawn.webthatworks.it |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:12:19 -0500
Peter Hunsberger <peter(dot)hunsberger(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > The first approach requires a distinct/group by that may be
> > expensive.
> > The second one requires I keep in memory all the emails while the
> > first statement run.
> Unless you're dealing with 100,000's of these things I think you're
> engaging in a process of "premature optimization". Group by can
> work efficiently over millions of rows.
We may get in the range of half that number occasionally but not
feeding emails directly from a HTTP request.
Still the number of passwords generated in one run may be in the
range of 50K. But well I could calmly wait 2 or 3 seconds.
Making some very rough test on a similar box to the one I'll have to
use it takes few milliseconds on a not indexed table.
> Do the simplest thing possible. Get it working, then see if you
> have any new problems you need to solve. Every issue you've
> described so far is database design 101 and should present no real
> problem. I think you're agonizing over nothing...
That's always a good advice. Sometimes you're out just for moral
support.
thanks
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2009-10-28 16:13:54 | Re: auto truncate/vacuum full |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-10-28 15:44:46 | Re: could not find array type for data type character varying[] |