Lists: | pgsql-novice |
---|
From: | "Sugrue, Sean" <Sean(dot)Sugrue(at)analog(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Big databases vs small databases |
Date: | 2004-02-17 21:46:56 |
Message-ID: | 8FDC0F9BE1F91D44BE964AA54AAA67B6092CEF49@wilmexm3.ad.analog.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
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?
From: | Wim <wdh(at)belbone(dot)be> |
---|---|
To: | "Sugrue, Sean" <Sean(dot)Sugrue(at)analog(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Big databases vs small databases |
Date: | 2004-02-18 07:55:55 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.53.0402180848540.5928@tyr.car.belbone.be |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: | Christian Pöcher <Poecher(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Big databases vs small databases |
Date: | 2004-02-19 00:26:05 |
Message-ID: | 002001c3f67e$f681f4d0$4008cad4@dose |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wim" <wdh(at)belbone(dot)be>
To: "Sugrue, Sean" <Sean(dot)Sugrue(at)analog(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)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