RE: pgsql-general-digest V1 #365

From: "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za>
To: "'pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: pgsql-general-digest V1 #365
Date: 1999-06-28 07:29:03
Message-ID: 1BF7C7482189D211B03F00805F8527F70ECFAE@S-NATH-EXCH2
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Jim Jennis wrote:
>>> Not only legacy apps, but data warehousing. Frequently in a production
>>> environment you use two sets of tables -- production and data
>>> warehousing...One (production) with "bare bones" indicies to maximize
>>> transaction performance, and one (a replicate in the data warehouse)
that
>>> you "index the living daylights out of" so that the non db saavy
managers
>>> who want to do ungodly joints and sorts on tables for organizational
>>> reporting get decent performance.
I'm so pleased to find out that somebody else has picked this up. In fact,
the summary tables that I'm working on are a kind of mini-warehouse, the
just happen to reside in the same tablespace as the transactional tables.
However, data warehousing is quite an important issue. I know that most of
the people who use PG work on transactional systems, but if anyone tries to
run even a small warehouse on PG it's going to get complicated very quickly.

On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Dustin Sallings wrote:
>>> Creating lots of indices is far different from creating a single
>>> index on a lot of fields. Data warehousing is the former. The problem
is
>>> that you can't create a single index with a large number of fields.
Not entirely true. Sometimes the level of summary can require more than
seven fields in an index, normally the primary index.

MikeA...

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mario Jorge Nunes Filipe 1999-06-28 09:16:39 Re: [GENERAL] What does this mean ?
Previous Message Remigiusz Sokolowski 1999-06-28 06:08:21 Re: [GENERAL] What does this mean ?