> Anyone know if read performance on a postgres database decreases at
> an increasing rate, as the number of stored records increase?
>
> It seems as if I'm missing something fundamental... maybe I am... is
> some kind of database cleanup necessary? With less than ten
> records, the grid populates very quickly. Beyond that, performance
> slows to a crawl, until it _seems_ that every new record doubles the
> time needed to retrieve...
Are you using indexes?
Are you vacuuming?
I may have incorrectly inferred table sizes and such, but the behavior
you describe seems odd - we typically work with hundreds of thousands
of entries in our tables with good results (though things do slow down
for the one DB we use with tens of millions of entries).
> The client asked me yesterday to start evaluating "more mainstream"
> databases, which means that they're pissed off. Postgres is fun to
> work with, but it's hard to learn about, and hard to justify to
> clients.
As for using a 'more mainstream' app, of course there's always that
pressure. FWIW, we have done well with the product so far. In about
a year of use for important (maybe even 'mission-critical') purposes,
we have only had one problem that was not easily solved ourselves.
And Postgresql, Inc. solved that one for us. With alot less
aggravation than most of our 'mainstream' vendors when we have a
problem involving their software.
--
Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@alert.infoplease.com>
617.832.0332 (Fax: 617.956.2696)
Information Please - your source for FREE online reference
http://www.infoplease.com - Your Ultimate Fact Finder
http://kids.infoplease.com - The Great Homework Helper
Netsaint Plugins Development
http://netsaintplug.sourceforge.net
