Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?

From: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date: 2007-06-05 22:06:09
Message-ID: 20070605220609.GA9835@uio.no
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the main argument for partitioning is when you are interested in
> being able to drop whole partitions cheaply.

Wasn't there also talk about adding the ability to mark individual partitions
as read-only, thus bypassing MVCC and allowing queries to be satisfied using
indexes only?

Not that I think I've seen it on the TODO... :-)

/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-06-05 22:08:05 Re: performance drop on 8.2.4, reverting to 8.1.4
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-06-05 21:59:25 Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?