| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stacy White" <harsh(at)computer(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "PFC" <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning? |
| Date: | 2005-03-21 17:55:03 |
| Message-ID: | 200503210955.03083.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Stacy,
> Luckily they that had the chance to work with a truly fantastic DBA (the
> author of an Oracle Press performance tuning book even) before they could
> switch back. He convinced them to make some of their indexes global.
> Performance dramatically improved (compared with both the unpartitioned
> schema, and the partitioned-and-locally-indexed schema), and they've since
> stayed with partitioned tables and a mix of local and global indexes.
Hmmm. Wouldn't Greg's suggestion of a bitmap index which holds information on
what values are found in what partition also solve this? Without 1/2 of
the overhead imposed by global indexes?
I can actually see such a bitmap as being universally useful to the
partitioning concept ... for one, it would resolve the whole "partition on
{value}" issue.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2005-03-21 18:18:17 | Re: What about utility to calculate planner cost constants? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-03-21 17:51:06 | Re: What about utility to calculate planner cost constants? |