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

Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Iain" <iain(at)mst(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Joe Conway" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>,"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --
Date: 2004-09-17 07:39:10
Message-ID: NOEFLCFHBPDAFHEIPGBOMEKJCEAA.simon@2ndquadrant.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
> Iain
> Joe's example wasn't excluding partions, as he didn't use a
> predicated UNION
> ALL view to select from. His queries use an indexed column that allow the
> various partitions to be probed at low cost, and he was satisfied
> wth that.

Agreed - very very interesting design though.

> My point in my previous post was that you could still do all that that if
> you wanted to, by building the predicated view with UNION ALL of
> each of the
> child tables.
>

AFAICS of all the designs proposed there is still only one design *using
current PostgreSQL* that allows partitions to be excluded from queries as a
way of speeding up queries against very large tables: UNION ALL with
appended constants.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2004-09-17 17:40:18
Subject: Re: Large # of rows in query extremely slow, not using
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2004-09-17 03:14:16
Subject: Re: Large # of rows in query extremely slow, not using

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