From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Date: | 2006-05-17 16:16:13 |
Message-ID: | 1147882573.23427.3.camel@home |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> Actually, I suspect in most cases it won't matter; I don't think people
> make a habit of trying to sort their entire database. :) But we'd want
> to protect for the oddball cases... yech.
I can make query result sets that are far larger than the database
itself.
create table fat_table_with_few_tuples(fat_status_id serial primary key,
fat_1 text, fat_2 text);
create table thin_table_with_many_tuples(fat_status_id integer
references fat_table_with_few_tuples, thin_1 integer, thin_2 integer);
SELECT * FROM thin_table_with_many_tuples NATURAL JOIN
fat_table_with_few_tuples order by fat_1, thin_1, thin_2, fat_2;
I would be asking the folks trying to use PostgreSQL for data
warehousing what their opinion is. A few fact tables in an audit query
could easily result in a very large amount of temporary diskspace being
required.
--
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-17 16:17:30 | [PATCH] Compression and on-disk sorting |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-17 16:13:49 | Re: Mention pg_dump version portability |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-17 16:17:30 | [PATCH] Compression and on-disk sorting |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-05-17 16:12:47 | Re: [GENERAL] Querying libpq compile time options |