| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres -- |
| Date: | 2004-09-15 17:34:53 |
| Message-ID: | 41487D3D.1040509@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Josh Berkus wrote:
>> - the use of inherited tables to partition this huge number of rows and
>> yet allow simple query access to it seems to work well, at least in
>> early validation tests
>> - had we simply taken the original database and "slammed" it into
>> Postgres with no further thought, we would not have seen the big
>> improvements, and thus the project might have been seen as a failure
>> (even though it saves substantial $)
>
>
> Any further thoughts on developing this into true table partitioning?
>
Just that I'd love to see it happen ;-)
Maybe someday I'll be able to find the time to work on it myself, but
for the moment I'm satisfied with the workarounds we've made.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2004-09-15 17:51:38 | Re: disk performance benchmarks |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-09-15 17:28:08 | Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres -- |