Re: Schemas vs partitioning vs multiple databases for archiving

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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