If the queries are selective and typically indexed, or you have enough RAM
then I'd say there won't be much difference between splitting the tables or
combining them into one.
95000 rows could be considered small. You might even have enough RAM to
cache the whole DB- can estimate from DB footprint on disk.
Link.
At 07:33 PM 4/2/03 -0500, John Wells wrote:
>I have a M$ Sql Server db that I'm porting to postgresql. Approx. 24
>tables from this old db can be combined in the new database into one
>table, and it would be a bit more elegant to do this.
>
>However, the combined table would be around 95000 rows in size.
>
>PHP app driving it gets a reasonable amount of traffic? I know
>performance is also heavily dependent on indexes and query structure, but
>disregarding either of those for the sake of argument, would I be better
>off keeping the tables separate, or is 95000 not something to worry about?
> btw, most tables in this database are quite small (<2000). My redesign
>would create two tables in the +90000 range, but less than 100000.
