| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Steve Wampler <swampler(at)noao(dot)edu>, Hervé Piedvache <herve(at)elma(dot)fr>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |
| Date: | 2005-01-20 16:04:04 |
| Message-ID: | 41EFD674.2030600@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> Probably by carefully partitioning their data. I can't imagine anything
>> being fast on a single table in 250,000,000 tuple range. Nor can I
>> really imagine any database that efficiently splits a single table
>> across multiple machines (or even inefficiently unless some internal
>> partitioning is being done).
>
>
> Ah, what about partial indexes - those might help. As a kind of
> 'semi-partition'.
He could also you schemas to partition out the information within the
same database.
J
>
> Chris
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| jd.vcf | text/x-vcard | 285 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Turner | 2005-01-20 16:05:57 | Re: Disk configuration |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2005-01-20 16:02:58 | Re: PostgreSQL clustering VS MySQL clustering |