| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Date: | 2006-06-23 12:57:49 |
| Message-ID: | 1151067469.3309.128.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> You said the activity comes in bursts per group, so the obvious
> partitioning would be per group.
> If you have too many groups to have one partition per group you could
> try to find some modulo or other rule to spread them into separate
> partitions.
This could be a solution... but then I'm not sure how well would do
queries which need the first 10 records based on some criteria which
does not include the group id. I guess limit queries across the union of
the partitions don't work too well for now, and we do have such queries.
I'm pretty sure we could work this out, but it would need some big
refactoring of our current code which is not that simple... and it must
work well with oracle too. We do have systems on Oracle too.
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Woodward | 2006-06-23 13:00:32 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
| Previous Message | Tzahi Fadida | 2006-06-23 12:57:19 | Planning without reason. |