Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> "Read-only" isn't an isolated case. Often you find many read-only
tables
> alongside rapidly changing tables. So even the busiest of databases
can
> benefit from read-only optimisations.
> Having changes to those tables cause much heavier additional work is
OK,
> if judged on a cost/benefit basis. So the case I care about ought to
be
> called "read-mostly" but we're talking write:read ratios of
millions:1.
We have tables which are frequently JOINed to other tables in complex
SELECT statements, but which are only modified as part of a software
release. It would be OK with us if switching between modifiable or
not actually took as much time as, for example, a CLUSTER command if
it gave us a performance benefit when used in these complex queries
when in read-only mode.
-Kevin