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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Cave-Ayland | 2007-12-06 20:10:08 | Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-12-06 18:34:47 | Re: TB-sized databases |