From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Schemas vs partitioning vs multiple databases for archiving |
Date: | 2012-08-18 08:13:40 |
Message-ID: | 502F4EB4.8000408@hogranch.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 08/18/12 1:05 AM, Bartel Viljoen wrote:
>
> Dear mailing list.
>
> My current application make use of partitioning by creating a new
> child table which holds transaction records for every month. I’ve
> notice that after a couple of months depending on the hardware at some
> of our clients the inserts become very slow. The reason memory. I
> don’t want to delete old child tables even though they may be queried
> seldom and we can’t upgrade memory since most clients are far and remote.
>
> I’m in the design faze of a new GUI and DB layout, what are my options.
>
> Create a DB for each month.
>
> Create a Schema for each month. Example
>
you should figure out why its slowing down, as it really shouldn't with
partitioned data. your schema idea is horrible, the seperate database
idea even worse.
--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2012-08-18 08:25:44 | Re: Views versus user-defined functions: formatting, comments, performance, etc. |
Previous Message | Bartel Viljoen | 2012-08-18 08:05:02 | Schemas vs partitioning vs multiple databases for archiving |