| 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 |