hen our off hours are.)
=thomas
On 6/5/07 12:48 PM, "Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>>> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>>> "Thomas Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECT
Linux 2.4.9, if I¹m reading this right.
=thomas
On 6/4/07 4:08 PM, "Y Sidhu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Thomas Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/4/07 3:43 PM, "Gregory Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On 6/4/07 3:43 PM, "Gregory Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Thomas Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I guess my real question is, does it ever make sense to create thousands of
>> tables like this?
>
> Sometimes. But
Mark Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:40 -0400, Thomas Andrews wrote:
I have several thousand clients. Our clients do surveys, and each survey
has two tables for the client data,
responders
responses
Frequent inserts into both table.
Right now, we are seeing significant time d
Oh, and we vacuum every day. Not sure about REINDEX, but I doubt we
have done that.
=thomas
Mark Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:40 -0400, Thomas Andrews wrote:
I have several thousand clients. Our clients do surveys, and each survey
has two tables for the client data,
responders
I have several thousand clients. Our clients do surveys, and each survey
has two tables for the client data,
responders
responses
Frequent inserts into both table.
Right now, we are seeing significant time during inserts to these two
tables.
Some of the indices in tableA and tableB do no
