On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 08:26:58PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 11:12:16AM -0700, David Fetter wrote: > > There's your mistake. EAV is not performant, and won't become so. > > It sort of depends. I put all the EXIF information for my image > gallery into an EAV table -- it was the most logical format at the > time, although I'm not sure I need all the information. Anyhow, with > clustering and indexes, Postgres zips through the five million > records easily enough for my use -- at least fast enough that I can > live with it without feeling the need for a redesign. Unless your records are huge, that's a tiny database, where tiny is defined to mean that the whole thing fits in main memory with plenty of room to spare. I guarantee that performance will crash right through the floor as soon as any table no longer fits in main memory. > As a general database design paradigm, though, I fully agree with > you. Databases are databases, not glorified OO data stores or hash > tables. Exactly :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@xxxxxxxxxx> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
