| From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brent Wood <b(dot)wood(at)niwa(dot)co(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | a_wronski(at)gazeta(dot)pl, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 10 TB database |
| Date: | 2009-06-16 16:23:10 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.GSO.2.01.0906161221090.17014@westnet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Brent Wood wrote:
> For data retrieval, clustered indexes may help, but as this requires a
> physical reordering of the data on disk, it may be impractical.
This tends to be irrelevant for this sort of data because it's normally
inserted in a fairly clustered way in the first place. The usual way
tables get unclustered involves random insertion and deletion, and that
just doesn't happen for data that's being imported daily and never deleted
afterwards; it's naturally clustered quite well.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Just Someone | 2009-06-16 16:57:13 | Re: Amazon EC2 | Any recent developments |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-06-16 16:20:25 | Re: 10 TB database |