On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 12:35 -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> Reading can be worse for a normalized db, which is likely what the
> developers were concerned about.
To a point. Once you have enough data that you start running out of
space in memory then normalization starts to rapidly gain ground again
because it's often smaller in size and won't hit the disk as much.
Moral of the story is don't tune with a smaller database than you expect
to have.
> Frank Wiles wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:06:55 -0800
> >Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I can't tell you how many times I've seen this sort of thing. And
> >>the developers always tell me "Well, we denormalized for performance
> >>reasons ... "
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Now that's rich. I don't think I've ever seen a database perform
> > worse after it was normalized. In fact, I can't even think of a
> > situation where it could!
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org>
> > http://www.wiles.org
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
