On 2 Dec 2005, at 14:16, Alex Stapleton wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005, at 16:03, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Riess <mlriess@xxxxxx> 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
