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? Harakd -- GHUM Harald Massa persuadere et programmare Harald Armin Massa Spielberger Straße 49 70435 Stuttgart 0173/9409607 no fx, no carrier pigeon - LASIK good, steroids bad? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
