From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Diogo Biazus <diogob(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgresql Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: About inheritance |
Date: | 2004-06-30 03:51:17 |
Message-ID: | 1088567476.87321.62.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
> I hope not -- I think the underlying infrastructure could become the
> basis of table partitioning. I have a project going on right now in
> which we're porting ~700GB of data (forecast to become multi-TB over the
> next year or so) from partitioned vendor-O tables to inherited Postgres
> tables.
Tell me how that works out. I have a few tables with more than 100M
records in them but only the last 5M (by time -- so it's well clustered)
or so are in active use.
Looked at inheritance, but it seems to do a select against the structure
anyway. Using partial indexes with a common datastore seems to work much
better, until VACUUM runs...
--
Rod Taylor <rbt [at] rbt [dot] ca>
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/signature.asc
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-06-30 03:53:28 | Re: About inheritance |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2004-06-30 03:38:30 | Re: About inheritance |