Re: large table vs multiple smal tables - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: large table vs multiple smal tables
Date
Msg-id 20050714182651.GB92165@decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to large table vs multiple smal tables  (Nicolas Beaume <nicolas.beaume@univ-nantes.fr>)
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 12:08:54PM +0200, Nicolas Beaume wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have a large database with 4 large tables (each containing at least
> 200 000 rows, perhaps even 1 or 2 million) and i ask myself if it's
> better to split them into small tables (e.g tables of 2000 rows) to
> speed the access and the update of those tables (considering that i will
> have few update but a lot of reading).

2 million rows is nothing unless you're on a 486 or something. As for
your other question, remember the first rule of performance tuning:
don't tune unless you actually need to.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Rod Taylor
Date:
Subject: Re: lots of updates on small table
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: JFS fastest filesystem for PostgreSQL?