Re: One large v. many small

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Noah Silverman
Тема Re: One large v. many small
Дата
Msg-id 176C96F6-3480-11D7-A3A3-000393AA8F3C@allresearch.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: One large v. many small  (Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>)
Ответы Re: One large v. many small
Re: One large v. many small
Список pgsql-performance
OK,

Thanks for the quick responses.

A bit more information.

We are in the business of gathering data for our clients. (We're a news
service).  Subsequently, we do a lot of inserting and very rarely do
any deleting. (We periodically clear out results that are over 6 months
old.)

On a give day, we will insert around 100,000 records in total.
(Currently split across all the client tables).

A challenging part of the process is that we have to keep track of
previous content that may be similar.  We CAN'T do this with a unique
index (don't ask, it would take too long to explain, but trust me, it
isn't possible).  So, we have to query the table first and then compare
the results of that query to what we are inserting.  SO, we probably do
close to 1 million queries, but then only make about 100,000 inserts.
The basic flow is 1) our system finds something it likes, 2) query the
table to see if something similar already exists, 3) if nothing similar
exists, insert.

While all this is going on, our clients are accessing our online
reporting system.  This system makes a variety of count and record
requests from the database.

As I mentioned in our earlier post, we are attempting to decide if
Postgres will run faster/better/ with one big table, or a bunch of
smaller ones.  It really doesn't make much difference to us, we just
want whatever structure will be faster.

Thanks,

-N


В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andrew Sullivan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: One large v. many small
Следующее
От: Jeff
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: One large v. many small