nair rajiv <nair331@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I found there is a table which will approximately have 5 crore > entries after data harvesting. > Is it advisable to keep so much data in one table ? That's 50,000,000 rows, right? At this site, you're looking at a non-partitioned table with more than seven times that if you go to a case and click the "Court Record Events" button: http://wcca.wicourts.gov/ > I have read about 'partitioning' a table. An other idea I have is > to break the table into different tables after the no of rows in > a table has reached a certain limit say 10 lacs. > For example, dividing a table 'datatable' to 'datatable_a', > 'datatable_b' each having 10 lac entries. > I needed advice on whether I should go for partitioning or the > approach I have thought of. It can help, and it can hurt. It depends on the nature of the data and how it is used. To get a meaningful answer, I think we'd need to know a bit more about it. > We have a HP server with 32GB ram,16 processors. The storage has > 24TB diskspace (1TB/HD). > We have put them on RAID-5. It will be great if we could know the > parameters that can be changed in the postgres configuration file > so that the database makes maximum utilization of the server we > have. Again, it depends a bit on the nature of the queries. For ideas on where to start, you might want to look here: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server If you get any particular queries which aren't performing as well as you think they should, you can post here with details. See this for information to include: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
