Re: update == delete + insert? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: update == delete + insert?
Date
Msg-id 20060321173813.GE15742@pervasive.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: update == delete + insert?  ("Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 09:12:08AM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > design 1 is normalized and better
> > > design 2 is denormalized and a bad approach no matter the RDBMS
> >
> > How is design 1 denormalized?
>
> It isn't :)...he said it is normalized.  Design 2 may or may not be
> de-normalized (IMO there is not enough information to make that
> determination) but as stated it's a good idea to split the table on
> practical grounds.

Err, sorry, got the number backwards. My point is that 2 isn't
denormalized afaik, at least not based just on the example. But yes, in
a case like this, vertical partitioning can make a lot of sense.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Guillaume Smet"
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Xeon MP
Next
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: Postmaster using only 4-5% CPU