| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Sofen <msofen(at)runbox(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Storing large documents - one table or partition by doc? |
| Date: | 2016-09-23 18:59:42 |
| Message-ID: | 060e03cb-bd2b-beb9-b2a1-dc1bfd30b0ca@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 9/23/16 7:14 AM, Mike Sofen wrote:
> So with proper indexing, I can’t see where there will be a performance
> issue.
Table bloat could become problematic. If there is a pattern where you
can predict which documents are likely to be active (say, documents that
have been modified in the last 10 days), then you can keep all of those
in a set of tables that is fairly small, and keep the remaining
documents in a set of "archive" tables. That will help reduce bloat in
the large archive tables. Before putting in that extra work though, I'd
just try the simple solution and see how well it works.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dev Nop | 2016-09-24 11:33:13 | Re: Storing large documents - one table or partition by doc? |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-09-23 18:51:15 | Re: Strange nested loop for an INSERT |