-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/02/07 14:58, Usama Dar wrote: > On Dec 2, 2007 6:35 PM, rokj <rjaklic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> For an example let me say that I have a big (over 1 million) user >> "base". Then every user does a lot of inserting/updating of data. >> Would it be better to create different tables for insert/updating for >> every user or would it be better just to have one big table with all >> data (tables would have of course the same columns, ...). How do you >> cope with this kind of things? >> >> 1.example (1 enormous table) >> tablename (id, user_id, datetime, some_data) >> >> 2. example (a big number of tables) >> tablename_user_id( id, datetime, some_data) > > > Although there isn't enough information in the email, but instead of > creating a separate table for every user, you could use one table , > partitioned on userid, that would , however, add a maint overhead whenever > you add a new user. Cluster by *range* of user ids, and preallocate some number of tablespaces. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA %SYSTEM-F-FISH, my hovercraft is full of eels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHU0tsS9HxQb37XmcRAhPoAJsESJL/Zs+SBRisowPXZbWQzIZqSgCeMEJE uKC47H0oPOI6qxxCFpipD9E= =A0ks -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
