From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sven Willenberger <sven(at)dmv(dot)com> |
Cc: | Postgresql Performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Inheritence versus delete from |
Date: | 2005-03-01 01:07:20 |
Message-ID: | 11427.1109639240@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Sven Willenberger <sven(at)dmv(dot)com> writes:
> 3) Each month:
> CREATE newmonth_dynamically_named_table (like mastertable) INHERITS
> (mastertable);
> modify the copy.sql script to copy newmonth_dynamically_named_table;
> pg_dump 3monthsago_dynamically_named_table for archiving;
> drop table 3monthsago_dynamically_named_table;
A number of people use the above approach. It's got some limitations,
mainly that the planner isn't super bright about what you are doing
--- in particular, joins involving such a table may work slowly.
On the whole I'd probably go with the other approach (one big table).
A possible win is to use CLUSTER rather than VACUUM ANALYZE to recover
space after your big deletes; however this assumes that you can schedule
downtime to do the CLUSTERs in.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Arbash Meinel | 2005-03-01 01:41:20 | Re: Inheritence versus delete from |
Previous Message | Sven Willenberger | 2005-02-28 23:59:13 | Inheritence versus delete from |