| From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Storing sensor data |
| Date: | 2009-05-28 17:12:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20090528171213.GG18879@it.is.rice.edu |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 05:24:33PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> 2009/5/28 Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>:
>
> >
> > One big benefit of partitioning is that you can prune old data with
> > minimal impact to the running system. Doing a large bulk delete would
> > be extremely I/O impacting without partion support. We use this for
> > a DB log system and it allows us to simply truncate a day table instead
> > of a delete -- much, much faster.
>
> Thanks. I'll need to investigate how much administrative overhead and
> fragility partitioning will introduce since the data will also be
> replicated between 2 servers (I'm thinking of using Slony). Any
> experience with this combination?
>
We use Slony1 on a number of databases, but none yet on which we
use data partitioning.
Cheers,
Ken
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabrix | 2009-05-28 18:50:56 | Scalability in postgres |
| Previous Message | Alan McKay | 2009-05-28 16:15:02 | Continuent (was: Postgres Clustering) |