On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Harald Armin Massa <chef@ghum.de> wrote:
> Merlin,
>
>> I agree though
>> that a single table approach is best unless 1) the table has to scale
>> to really, really large sizes or 2) there is a lot of churn on the
>> data (lots of bulk inserts and deletes).
>
> while agreeing, an additional question: could you please pronounce
> "really, really large" in other units, like Gigabytes or Number of
> rows (with average rowlength in bytes, of course)
>
> That is: what table size would you or anybody consider really, really
> large actually?
A good rule of thumb for large is table size > working ram. Huge
(really large) is 10x ram.
merlin
