Re: Performance issues of one vs. two split tables.

From: Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance issues of one vs. two split tables.
Date: 2007-05-16 20:59:24
Message-ID: 859D35EE-3502-40E5-901D-DEA8B71D6814@khera.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


On May 14, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Bill Moseley wrote:

> Say that there's also about 10 columns of settings or preferences for
> each user. Are there any cases or reasons to have a separate
> "user_preferences" table vs. just placing all the columns together in
> one table?

when you have, say 65 million users, it makes sense to push the
ancillary info to another table to keep from having to copy too much
data when you update the main info (like last access time).

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vivek Khera 2007-05-16 21:04:01 Re: Performance issues of one vs. two split tables.
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-05-16 20:58:44 Re: Postgres Printed Manuals