From: | Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)fireserve(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: table size/record limit |
Date: | 2004-10-22 13:37:42 |
Message-ID: | 41790D26.5090004@fireserve.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Great Idea! When I get that far, I will try it.
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
<snip>
> For partion in some way I don't mean only split it in more tables. You
> can use some available tools in postgres and continue to see this table
> as one but implemented behind the scenes with more tables.
> One usefull and impressive way is to use the inheritance in order to obtain
> a vertical partition
>
> 0) Decide a partition policy ( based on time stamp for example )
> 1) Create an empty base table with the name that you want see as "public"
> 2) Create the partition using the empty table as base table
> 3) Create a rule on the base table so an insert or the update on it is
> ~ performed as a insert or an update on the right table ( using the
> partition
> ~ policy at step 0 )
>
> in this way you are able to vacuum each partition, reindex each
> partition and
> so on in a more "feseable way" I do not immagine vacuum full or reindex a
> 3,600,000,000 records table...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Davide Negri | 2004-10-22 13:52:36 | Log |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-10-22 13:36:10 | Re: [Slony1-general] Re: Slony-I 1.0.4 Released |