| From: | Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim C(dot) Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Small table or partial index? |
| Date: | 2005-12-13 16:08:55 |
| Message-ID: | cone.1134490135.372863.79998.1000@zoraida.natserv.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jim C. Nasby writes:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 06:28:09PM -0500, Francisco Reyes wrote:
>> I am in the process of designing a new system.
>> There will be a long list of words such as
>>
>> -word table
>> word_id integer
>> word varchar
>> special boolean
>>
>> Some "special" words are used to determine if some work is to be done and
>> will be what we care the most for one type of operation.
>
> Tough call. The key here is the amount of time required to do a join. It
> also depends on if you need all the special words or not. Your best bet
> is to try and benchmark both ways.
In your opinion do you think performance will be comparable?
I am hoping I will have time to test, but not sure if will have time and the
tables will be pretty large. :-(
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Sidney-Woollett | 2005-12-13 16:37:42 | Re: Memory Leakage Problem |
| Previous Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2005-12-13 16:08:52 | Re: query from partitions |