From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, molson(at)oceanconsulting(dot)com, Sam Vilain <sam(at)vilain(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Prefetch |
Date: | 2005-05-11 13:42:30 |
Message-ID: | 1115818950.725.6.camel@home |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 12:53 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Another trick you can use with large data sets like this when you want
> > results
> > back in seconds is to have regularly updated tables that aggregate the data
> > along each column normally aggregated against the main data set.
>
> > Maybe some bright person will prove me wrong by posting some working
> > information about how to get these apparently absent features working.
>
> Most people just use simple triggers to maintain aggregate summary tables...
Agreed. I've also got a view which calls a function that will 1) use the
summary table where data exists, or 2) calculate the summary
information, load it into summary table, and send a copy to the client
(partial query results cache).
It's not all nicely abstracted behind user friendly syntax, but most of
those features can be cobbled together (with effort) in PostgreSQL.
--
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-11 13:57:07 | Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-11 13:27:57 | Re: Partitioning / Clustering |