From: | "Steven Flatt" <steven(dot)flatt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Colin Taylor" <colin(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: table partioning performance |
Date: | 2007-01-10 21:00:00 |
Message-ID: | 357fa7590701101300m2812545k1487ca58e97970ed@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On 1/9/07, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> If you are doing date range partitioning it should be fairly simple to
> load data into the latest table directly. That was the way I originally
> intended for it to be used. The rules approach isn't something I'd
> recommend as a bulk loading option and its a lot more complex anyway.
>
The problem we have with blindly loading all data into the latest table is
that some data (< 5%, possibly even much less) is actually delivered "late"
and belongs in earlier partitions. So we still needed the ability to send
data to an arbitrary partition.
Steve
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steven Flatt | 2007-01-10 21:39:06 | Re: table partioning performance |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-01-10 20:24:42 | Re: table partioning performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-01-10 21:09:31 | Re: Partitioning |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2007-01-10 20:45:31 | Re: Performance of PostgreSQL on Windows vs Linux |