| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Reiner Dassing <dassing(at)wettzell(dot)ifag(dot)de> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Triggers do not fire | 
| Date: | 2001-10-17 15:34:21 | 
| Message-ID: | 27135.1003332861@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql | 
Reiner Dassing <dassing(at)wettzell(dot)ifag(dot)de> writes:
> I have a table which has a lot of entries (some x millions) of the kind
> (id, timestamp, value)
> The access (selects) is concentrated to the timely last some thousands
> entries. 
> To adapt this fact I want to setup a "virtual" table - test in my
> example - which
> is accessed by the clients but in reality the entries are separated to
> different small
> tables. These table are dynamically created to hold the values
> distinguished by years.
Why bother?  Seems like you are just making life complicated for
yourself.  One big table with a suitable index ought to work fine.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2001-10-17 15:40:32 | Re: Performance problems - Indexes and VACUUM | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-10-17 15:31:25 | Re: Performance problems - Indexes and VACUUM |