From: | Nickolay <nitro(at)zhukcity(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PG optimization question |
Date: | 2010-01-09 12:59:08 |
Message-ID: | 4B487D9C.9020507@zhukcity.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
That may help with the queries speed (not a problem now), but we'll then
have to add UNION statement for daily staging table for other 5% of
requests, right? And there would be a moment when daily message is in
archive table AND in daily table (while transferring from daily table to
archive).
Our main problem is in blocking when doing DELETE (app sometimes freezes
for a long time), and also we have to do VACUUM on live table, which is
not acceptable in our app.
Thanks for your reply, I was kinda worried about number of partitions
and how this would affect PG query execution speed.
Kenneth Marshall wrote:
>> Oh, btw, 95% of queries are searching rows for current date (last 24
>> hours).
>>
>
> You may want to use a daily staging table and then flush to the
> monthly archive tables at the end of the day.
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pierre Frédéric Caillaud | 2010-01-09 15:37:29 | Re: PG optimization question |
Previous Message | Lefteris | 2010-01-09 12:52:31 | Re: Joint index including MAX() ? |