| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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?
| 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 |