| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |