Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
Date: 2008-01-09 18:53:47
Message-ID: 4785183B.2050709@cheapcomplexdevices.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Chris Browne wrote:
> _On The Other Hand_, there will be attributes that are *NOT* set in a
> more-or-less chronological order, and Segment Exclusion will be pretty
> useless for these attributes.

Really? I was hoping that it'd be useful for any data
with long runs of the same value repeated - regardless of ordering.

My biggest tables are clustered by zip/postal-code -- which means that
while the City, State, Country attributes aren't monotonically increasing
or decreasing; they are grouped tightly together. I'd expect all queries
for San Francisco to be able to come from at most 2 segments; and all queries
for Texas to be able to come from only a fraction of the whole.

If the segment sizes are configurable - I imagine this would even
be useful for other data - like a people table organized
by last_name,first_name. "John"'s may be scattered through out
the table -- but at least the John Smith's would all be on one
segment, while the Aaron-through-Jim Smith segments might get excluded.

Or am I missing something?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin Sherry 2008-01-09 19:03:13 Re: Dynamic Partitioning using Segment Visibility Maps
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-01-09 18:27:41 Re: Named vs Unnamed Partitions