From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Mischa Sandberg <mischa(dot)sandberg(at)telus(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Partitioning / Clustering |
Date: | 2005-05-10 22:15:54 |
Message-ID: | 20050510221554.GR31103@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:55:55PM -0700, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
> just beyond belief, for both updates and queries. At Acxiom, the
> datasets are so large, even after partitioning, that they just
> constantly cycle them through memory, and commands are executes in
> convoys --- sort of like riding a paternoster.
Speaking of which... what's the status of the patch that allows seqscans
to piggyback on already running seqscans on the same table?
> So where should I go look, to see what's been done so far, on a Postgres
> that can treat another PG server as a new table type?
To the best of my knowledge no such work has been done. There is a
project (who's name escapes me) that lets you run queries against a
remote postgresql server from a postgresql connection to a different
server, which could serve as the basis for what you're proposing.
BTW, given your experience, you might want to check out Bizgres.
(http://pgfoundry.org/projects/bizgres/) I'm sure your insights would be
most welcome.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Lewis | 2005-05-10 22:46:04 | Re: [PERFORM] "Hash index" vs. "b-tree index" (PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Mischa Sandberg | 2005-05-10 21:55:55 | Re: Partitioning / Clustering |