Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?

From: david(at)lang(dot)hm
To: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date: 2007-06-05 22:58:01
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0706051557070.24361@asgard.lang.hm
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the main argument for partitioning is when you are interested in
>> being able to drop whole partitions cheaply.
>
> Wasn't there also talk about adding the ability to mark individual partitions
> as read-only, thus bypassing MVCC and allowing queries to be satisfied using
> indexes only?
>
> Not that I think I've seen it on the TODO... :-)

now that's a very interesting idea, especially when combined with
time-based data where the old times will never change.

David Lang

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message weiping 2007-06-06 03:45:43 weird query plan
Previous Message david 2007-06-05 22:31:55 Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?