Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date: 2007-06-06 19:23:51
Message-ID: 20070606192351.GC11545@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:06:09AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:

> Wasn't there also talk about adding the ability to mark individual
> partitions as read-only, thus bypassing MVCC and allowing queries
> to be satisfied using indexes only?

I have a (different) problem that read-only data segments (maybe
partitions, maybe something else) would help, so I know for sure that
someone is working on a problem like this, but I don't think it's the
sort of thing that's going to come any time soon.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Sullivan 2007-06-06 19:32:11 Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Previous Message Gunther Mayer 2007-06-06 19:20:54 VERY slow queries at random