Re: per table random-page-cost?

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com>,<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: per table random-page-cost?
Date: 2009-10-20 13:58:14
Message-ID: 4ADD7BA6020000250002BB85@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> wrote:

> The unfortunate reality of accounts receivable is that reports run
> to list people who owe one money happen much more often than posting
> payments into the system does.

How often do you have to print a list of past due accounts? I've
generally seen that done weekly or monthly, in the same places that
there are many people standing full time in payment windows just to
collect money from those lining up to pay. When they bring in a
document which identifies the receivable (like, in our case, a traffic
or parking ticket), there's no need to look at any older data in the
database.

Heck, even our case management applications likely follow the 90% to
95% cache hit pattern in counties which aren't fully cached, since
there's a lot more activity on court cases filed this year and last
year than on cases filed 30 years ago.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2009-10-20 14:07:03 Re: Could postgres be much cleaner if a future release skipped backward compatibility?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-10-20 13:42:36 Re: Rejecting weak passwords