| From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Feature suggestions (long) |
| Date: | 2003-05-17 11:04:11 |
| Message-ID: | 200305170404.11033.dhogaza@pacifier.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Saturday 17 May 2003 10:51 am, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2003, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > > I'm going suggest a feature like what Oracle calls "partitions" and
> > > > later on something with indexes. The idea is to generate some
> > > > discussion to see if they are worthy of being added to the TODO list.
> > >
> > > Why bother?
> >
> > Maybe one can put different partitions in different tablespaces?
>
> One can. The tablespace a partition is in can even be
> offline if Oracle can prove that a query doesn't require
> that partition.
People use this feature for warehousing old data that they don't want to purge
from the database. For very large databases (of course that definition
changes with each new generation of computer) this can greatly improve the
performance of queries on the active portion of the data.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2003-05-17 15:00:40 | Feature suggestions (long) |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2003-05-17 09:06:01 | Re: ECPG timestamp.c |