Thread: Big databases vs small databases

Hi Sean,

It depends on how your table is build. If it is a table without indexes
and constraints, it doesn't matter how big your DB is. It also depends on
how you insert them: an insert takes longer than a copy and if you use
insert it takes longer if you have autocommit enabled.
I have tables that I fill with the copy command. Those tables contain more
than 160 million records and it still goes quite fast.

I hope that I'm right, because these are only thoughts. I didn't perform
any tests. The specialists may correct me if I'm wrong :-)
If I'm right, it was my pleasure to help you :-)

Cheers!

Wim

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Sugrue, Sean wrote:

> Stupid question. Does it take longer to add records to a large database as oppose to a smaller one?
> Intuitively I would think so, but I just don't know reason. Has anyone performed any tests to find out
> if its a linear relationship or does it go up exponentially?
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wim" <wdh@belbone.be>
To: "Sugrue, Sean" <Sean.Sugrue@analog.com>
Cc: <pgsql-novice@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [NOVICE] Big databases vs small databases

> If it is a table without indexes
> and constraints, it doesn't matter how big your DB is

AFAIK postgres adds an implicit B-tree index over the primary key to a table
that has no index. Rebuilding a B-Tree should take longer for a larger tree,
especally if newly added index keys are already sorted.

> I hope that I'm right, because these are only thoughts. I didn't perform
> any tests. The specialists may correct me if I'm wrong :-)

Same here. :-P

chris