Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: TB-sized databases

From: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Date: 2007-12-06 19:50:33
Message-ID: 20071206195030.GQ5294@mathom.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:13:18AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Indeed, and if you've got examples where it's that far off, you should
>report them.

Yeah, the trick is to get it to a digestable test case. The basic 
scenario (there are more tables & columns in the actual case) is a set 
of tables partitioned by date with a number of columns in one table 
referencing rows in the others:

Table A (~5bn rows / 100's of partitions)
time Bkey1 Ckey1 Bkey2 Ckey2

Table B (~1bn rows / 100's of partitions)
Bkey Bval

Table C (~.5bn rows / 100's of partitions)
Ckey Cval

Bkey and Ckey are unique, but the planner doesn't know that.

Mike Stone

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Mark Cave-AylandDate: 2007-12-06 20:10:08
Subject: Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not2005)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-12-06 18:34:47
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group