| From: | AlexK <alkuzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should I partition this table? |
| Date: | 2014-07-10 15:48:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1405007283652-5811142.post@n5.nabble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Kevin,
For now, all the data fits in the cache: the box has 384GB of RAM. But I
want to be ready for later, when we have more data. It is easier to refactor
my table now, when it is still smallish.
Children are only added to recently added parents, and they are all
added/updated/deleted at once. These child rows represent an object which
changes as a whole.
Parents are added over time at a steady pace, with increasing ID values. But
we frequently read history as well as recent rows. Also we sometimes remove,
always the parent and all its child rows.
I hope this is enough information. Thank you!
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Should-I-partition-this-table-tp5811130p5811142.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Quinlan Pfiffer | 2014-07-10 16:14:56 | Re: Standby Server and Barman Backup on production system |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-10 15:47:12 | Re: Joining on a view containing a UNION ALL produces a suboptimal plan on 9.3.4 |