| From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? |
| Date: | 2007-06-06 19:23:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20070606192351.GC11545@phlogiston.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:06:09AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> 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?
I have a (different) problem that read-only data segments (maybe
partitions, maybe something else) would help, so I know for sure that
someone is working on a problem like this, but I don't think it's the
sort of thing that's going to come any time soon.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now.
--J.D. Baldwin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-06-06 19:32:11 | Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? |
| Previous Message | Gunther Mayer | 2007-06-06 19:20:54 | VERY slow queries at random |