Good time of the day!
>> > One more question related to performance. I have a VERY BIG table
>> > (abot 20 million records) which is accessed relatively seldom, like
>> > once a day (basically, it's archived data which sometimes may be
>> > needed). How this table affect performance of the database? Is it
>> > worse to create another database for storing this data, and keep the
>> > main DB small?
>>
>> It will make no difference to performance except when it is being used.
JB> True. But you might want to separate them if it will make it more
JB> flexible for you (being able to dump all of the smaller database and
JB> move it to a different machine, etc.) But if you separate them, it will
JB> be harder to do cross-database queries (but see dblink/ in contrib for a
JB> solution). All things being equal, I'd probably keep them together.
Thanks to Joel and Oliver for the input! Actually, I don't need to
move DB or do something like that (I make dumps on a table level,
so it's easy to avoid large dumps).
But I have an extended question: is there a cost-effective (in terms
of performance) way to add record to a large table? I don't need
indexing or such - just to add some data, e.g., a log record. Currently
I insert records into small table, than at night run a batch which is
moving added records from small table to the large one. Trying to add
records to large table "on the fly" causes noticable performance
degradation, but would be desirable if it's possible...
Best regards,
Dmitri ( mailto:dmitri@listsoft.ru )
New SOFT daily (RUS): http://www.listsoft.ru/
(ENG): http://www.listsoft.com/
Articles, tips : http://www.diskovod.ru/
---
"Apple" (c) 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.
