Re: Column as arrays.. more efficient than columns?
От | Ow Mun Heng |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Column as arrays.. more efficient than columns? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1189151376.13896.2.camel@neuromancer.home.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Column as arrays.. more efficient than columns? (Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Column as arrays.. more efficient than columns?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 00:18 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 09/06/07 21:26, Ow Mun Heng wrote: > 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. I can't refute you on this since I have no experience in this arena, only what I read in highscalbility.com (IIRC) > > 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. Data is inserted 24 hours a day, but not at the same rate each sec/minute. The problem isn't really the data-insertion, it's already inserted in a normalised manner. It's the selection of data. (OLTP datahouse) which takes a longer time and which is the area of worry.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: