Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: david(at)lang(dot)hm, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, henk de wit <henk53602(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?
Date: 2009-05-08 21:03:30
Message-ID: 14898.1241816610@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> so I think that it is much easier for the database engine to efficiantly
>> search two 500G tables instead of one 1T table.

> And that leads me to the opposite conclusion on this point.

I don't think there would be any difference on that score, either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Paolo Rizzi 2009-05-08 23:10:18 Re: PostgreSQL with PostGIS on embedded hardware
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-05-08 20:53:16 Re: Transparent table partitioning in future version of PG?