| From: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps |
| Date: | 2008-01-04 12:39:42 |
| Message-ID: | 477E290E.2040100@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Simon Riggs wrote:
> - any Fact table where measurements/observations/events are accumulated
> e.g.
> Web Hits (any Internet events)
> Call Detail Records
> Sales
> Security Events
> Scientific Measurements
> Process Control
>
> - any Major Entity where new entities are created from a sequence
> e.g.
> Orders, OrderItems
> Invoices
> Shipments, Returns
> most SCM/DCM events
...and only changed very seldom after a while, I would add. Because
changing an old tuple would invalidate the optimization for the affected
segment.
That's why this optimization can't help for inventory tables, where an
id might correlate with time and storage location, but writing access
doesn't correlate with storage location (segment number) and time.
Regards
Markus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2008-01-04 12:49:27 | Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps |
| Previous Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2008-01-04 12:29:55 | Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps |