| From: | "John Wells" <jb(at)sourceillustrated(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <ale(at)ale(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Postgresql capabilities question |
| Date: | 2003-04-03 00:33:46 |
| Message-ID: | 34044.172.16.2.4.1049330026.squirrel@192.168.2.4 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I have a M$ Sql Server db that I'm porting to postgresql. Approx. 24
tables from this old db can be combined in the new database into one
table, and it would be a bit more elegant to do this.
However, the combined table would be around 95000 rows in size.
Having never really used Postgresql in the past, and unable to find a
datapoint on the web, I would really like to get input from current users.
Is this an unreasonable table size to expect good performance when the
PHP app driving it gets a reasonable amount of traffic? I know
performance is also heavily dependent on indexes and query structure, but
disregarding either of those for the sake of argument, would I be better
off keeping the tables separate, or is 95000 not something to worry about?
btw, most tables in this database are quite small (<2000). My redesign
would create two tables in the +90000 range, but less than 100000.
Thanks very much for your input.
John
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Wheeler | 2003-04-03 00:37:01 | ANNOUNCE: Bricolage-Devel 1.5.2 |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-04-02 23:21:55 | Re: Backend often crashing |