On 2 Dec 2005, at 14:16, Alex Stapleton wrote:
>
> On 1 Dec 2005, at 16:03, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Michael Riess <mlriess@gmx.de> writes:
>>> (We NEED that many tables, please don't recommend to reduce them)
>>
>> No, you don't. Add an additional key column to fold together
>> different
>> tables of the same structure. This will be much more efficient than
>> managing that key at the filesystem level, which is what you're
>> effectively doing now.
>>
>> (If you really have 15000 distinct rowtypes, I'd like to know what
>> your database design is...)
>>
>
> Won't you end up with awful seek times if you just want data which
> previously been stored in a single table? E.g. whilst before you
> wanted 1000 contiguous rows from the table, now you want 1000 rows
> which now have 1000 rows you don't care about in between each one
> you do want.
>
I must of had a total and utter failure of intellect for a moment
there. Please ignore that :P