From: | "Brandon Shalton" <brandon(at)cydataservices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Benjamin Arai" <me(at)benjaminarai(dot)com> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Partioning tsearch2 a table into chunks and accessing via views |
Date: | 2007-08-25 21:17:53 |
Message-ID: | 012c01c7e75d$68c4ef20$c901a8c0@blaptop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
>
> As stated in the previous email if I use partitioning then queries will
> be executed sequentially - i.e., instead of log(n) it would be (#
> partitions) * log(n). Right?
>
depends.. since indexes would be hit for each child table, the time for
query is dependent on the amount of data that is indexed in each table.
the querying of the parent is still pretty quick given dual processor and a
fast array filestorage device.
given your situation, i would give the parent/child approach a child. I
haven't checked in postgres if it is has it has Joshua had replied, but I do
know bizgres does as i have been running this configuration for the last 3
years and it solved my problem of importing 30-60M records in a day and
still being able to query the database for data.
-brandon
http://www.t3report.com - marketing intelligence for online marketing and
affiliate programs
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Max Zorloff | 2007-08-25 21:22:58 | Shared memory usage |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-08-25 20:39:52 | Re: Shared memory usage |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Max Zorloff | 2007-08-25 21:22:58 | Shared memory usage |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-08-25 20:39:52 | Re: Shared memory usage |