Re: Storing sensor data

From: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Storing sensor data
Date: 2009-05-28 17:12:13
Message-ID: 20090528171213.GG18879@it.is.rice.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 05:24:33PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> 2009/5/28 Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>:
>
> >
> > One big benefit of partitioning is that you can prune old data with
> > minimal impact to the running system. Doing a large bulk delete would
> > be extremely I/O impacting without partion support. We use this for
> > a DB log system and it allows us to simply truncate a day table instead
> > of a delete -- much, much faster.
>
> Thanks. I'll need to investigate how much administrative overhead and
> fragility partitioning will introduce since the data will also be
> replicated between 2 servers (I'm thinking of using Slony). Any
> experience with this combination?
>

We use Slony1 on a number of databases, but none yet on which we
use data partitioning.

Cheers,
Ken

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabrix 2009-05-28 18:50:56 Scalability in postgres
Previous Message Alan McKay 2009-05-28 16:15:02 Continuent (was: Postgres Clustering)