Re: Question about performance - Postgres 9.5
| От | Venkata B Nagothi |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Question about performance - Postgres 9.5 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAEyp7J-OOh9mZNNcQiWDnCRPWiDXhOc8wxD4ip-RiTHGiPfzaQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Question about performance - Postgres 9.5 (Patrick B <patrickbakerbr@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Question about performance - Postgres 9.5
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Patrick B <patrickbakerbr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys,In the db I'm working one, it will be three tables:visits, work, others.Everything the customer do, will be logged. All inserts/updates/deletes will be logged.Option 1: Each table would have its own log table.visits_logs, work_logs, others_logsOption 2: All the logs would be stored here...log_tableCan you please guys tell me which option would be faster in your opinion, and why?
Did you mean that, you will be auditing the activities happening on those 3 tables ? If yes, can you clarify on what you will be exactly logging ?
What will be the volume of transactions all the 3 tables will be receiving over a business day ? if the volume is manageable, then one table for logging all the actions across 3 tables would be good.
If you are auditing and size of the data is manageable then, even one table would also be good. A separate audit table for each table would generally be a good idea, which makes it easy for tracking activities.
Regards,
Venkata B N
Fujitsu Australia
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: