Re: Defining performance.

[Chris <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com>]

Tobias Brox wrote:
> [nospam(at)hardgeus(dot)com - Thu at 06:37:12PM -0600]
> > As my dataset has gotten larger I have had to throw more metal at the
> > problem, but I have also had to rethink my table and query design.  Just
> > because your data set grows linearly does NOT mean that the performance of
> > your query is guaranteed to grow linearly!  A sloppy query that runs OK
> > with 3000 rows in your table may choke horribly when you hit 50000.
>
> Then some limit is hit ... either the memory cache, or that the planner
> is doing an unlucky change of strategy when hitting 50000.

Not really. A bad query is a bad query (eg missing a join element). It 
won't show up for 3000 rows, but will very quickly if you increase that 
by a reasonable amount. Even as simple as a missing index on a join 
column won't show up for a small dataset but will for a larger one.

It's a pretty common mistake to assume that a small dataset will behave 
exactly the same as a larger one - not always the case.

--
Postgresql & php tutorials
http://www.designmagick.com/