-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/06/07 21:26, Ow Mun Heng wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 20:57 -0500, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2007, at 20:46 , Ow Mun Heng wrote:
>
>>> I would believe performance would be better it being denormalised. (in
>>> this case)
>> I assume you've arrived at the conclusion because you have
>> (a) shown
>> that the performance with a normalized schema does not meet your
>> needs;
>> (b) benchmarked the normalized schema under production
>> conditions;
>> (c) benchmarked the denormalized schema under production
>> conditions; and
>> (d) shown that performance is improved in the
>> denormalized case to arrive at that conclusion. I'm interested to see
>> the results of your comparisons.
>
>> Regardless, it sounds like you've already made up your mind. Why ask
>> for comments?
>
> You've assumed wrong. I've not arrived at any conclusion but merely
> exploring my options on which way would be the best to thread. I'm
> asking the list because I'm new in PG and after reading all those
> articles on highscalability etc.. majority of them are all using some
> kind of denormalised tables.
Correlation != causation.
There *might* be a causal relationship between high scalability and
table denormalization, but I seriously doubt it.
> Right now, there's 8 million rows of data in this one table, and growing
> at a rapid rate of ~2 million/week. I can significantly reduce this
> number down to 200K (i think by denormalising it) and shrink the table
> size.
Even presuming you only insert data SIX hours per day, that's only
13.3 inserts per second. Not very impressive.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG4N81S9HxQb37XmcRArnRAJ9T2vOWe+RTWK99zYKCXIVfzisY5ACg3s8H
NAeykgSGT2jeiXUa8P8oRAQ=
=GBcW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
