Re: PG optimization question

From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nickolay <nitro(at)zhukcity(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG optimization question
Date: 2010-01-09 12:18:04
Message-ID: 2f4958ff1001090418i78dee992t5ff2d78a54187c07@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

maybe that 'one big table' needs something called 'normalisation'
first. See how much that will shed off. You might be surprised.
The partitioning needs to be done by some constant intervals, of time
- in your case. Whatever suits you, I would suggest to use the rate
that will give you both ease of archiving/removal of old data (so not
too wide), and also, one that would make sure that most of the data
you'll be searching for in your queries will be in one , two
partitions per query.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Kellerer 2010-01-09 12:32:49 Re: PG optimization question
Previous Message Nickolay 2010-01-09 10:32:39 PG optimization question