On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Harald Armin Massa <chef@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Merlin, > >> I agree though >> that a single table approach is best unless 1) the table has to scale >> to really, really large sizes or 2) there is a lot of churn on the >> data (lots of bulk inserts and deletes). > > while agreeing, an additional question: could you please pronounce > "really, really large" in other units, like Gigabytes or Number of > rows (with average rowlength in bytes, of course) > > That is: what table size would you or anybody consider really, really > large actually? A good rule of thumb for large is table size > working ram. Huge (really large) is 10x ram. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
