From: | Dustin Sallings <dustin(at)spy(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Jennis <jhjennis(at)shentel(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:56:12 +0200 |
Date: | 1999-06-27 03:01:30 |
Message-ID: | Pine.SGI.3.95.990626200021.3570A-100000@bleu.west.spy.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Jim Jennis wrote:
# Not only legacy apps, but data warehousing. Frequently in a production
# environment you use two sets of tables -- production and data
# warehousing...One (production) with "bare bones" indicies to maximize
# transaction performance, and one (a replicate in the data warehouse)
# that you "index the living daylights out of" so that the non db saavy
# managers who want to do ungodly joints and sorts on tables for
# organizational reporting get decent performance.
Creating lots of indices is far different from creating a single
index on a lot of fields. Data warehousing is the former. The problem is
that you can't create a single index with a large number of fields.
--
SA, beyond.com My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <dustin(at)spy(dot)net>
| Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dustin Sallings | 1999-06-27 03:02:12 | Re: [GENERAL] Definitive list of new types in 6.5 needed |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-06-27 02:19:17 | Re: [GENERAL] large object minimum storage |