From: | Jeremy Harris <jgh(at)wizmail(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: database size growing continously |
Date: | 2009-10-30 18:57:04 |
Message-ID: | 4AEB3700.5080304@wizmail.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 10/30/2009 12:43 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Steve Crawford
> <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> wrote:
>> Use a parent table and 20 child tables. Create a new child every day and
>> drop the 20-day-old table. Table drops are far faster and lower-impact than
>> delete-from a 120-million row table. Index-bloat is limited to one-day of
>> inserts and will be eliminated in 20-days.
[...]
>> Read up on it here:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/ddl-partitioning.html
>
> From a performance point of view, this is going to be the best option.
> It might push some complexity though into his queries to invoke
> constraint exclusion or deal directly with the child partitions.
Seeking to understand.... is the use of partitions and constraint-exclusion
pretty much a hack to get around poor performance, which really ought
to be done invisibly and automatically by a DBMS?
Much as indexes per se are, in the SQL/Codd worldview?
Or, is there more to it?
I appreciate the "Simple Matter Of Programming" problem.
Thanks,
Jeremy
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jesper Krogh | 2009-10-30 19:46:37 | Re: Queryplan within FTS/GIN index -search. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-30 15:03:47 | Re: sub-select in IN clause results in sequential scan |