| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Wilson <david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Janet Jacobsen <jsjacobsen(at)lbl(dot)gov>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: general question on two-partition table |
| Date: | 2009-07-28 00:24:25 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0907271724w72bca6cfva8eec333ddc4a0a3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:08 AM, David Wilson<david(dot)t(dot)wilson(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Janet Jacobsen<jsjacobsen(at)lbl(dot)gov> wrote:
>
>> Can you suggest other strategies?
>
> Something that might be easier to play with is to create a (or
> several, to speed up other queries) functional index on the comparison
> between rbscore and the cutoff.
I think it would be even more interesting to have partial indexes --
ie specified with "WHERE rbscore < cutoff".
I'm actually wondering if partitioning is really what you want. You
might prefer to just keep two entirely separate tables. One that has
all the data and one that has a second copy of the desirable subset.
Kind of like a "materialized view" of a simple query with the where
clause of "rbscore < cutoff".
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Wilson | 2009-07-28 00:26:05 | Re: general question on two-partition table |
| Previous Message | David Wilson | 2009-07-28 00:08:38 | Re: general question on two-partition table |