| From: | "Bucky Jordan" <bjordan(at)lumeta(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc Morin" <marc(at)sandvine(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Markus Schaber" <schabi(at)logix-tt(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Decreasing BLKSZ |
| Date: | 2006-09-26 22:14:07 |
| Message-ID: | 78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4209ADF@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>
> So, I'd like my cake and eat it too... :-)
>
> I'd like to have my indexes built as rows are inserted into the
> partition so help with the drill down...
>
So you want to drill down so fine grained that summary tables don't do
much good? Keep in mind, even if you roll up only two records, that's
half as many you have to process (be it for drill down or index).
I've seen applications that have a log table with no indexes/constraints
and lots of records being inserted, then they only report on very fine
grained summary tables. Drill downs still work pretty well, but if you
get audited and want to see that specific action, well, you're in for a
bit of a wait, but hopefully that doesn't happen too often.
If that's the case (summary tables won't work), I'd be very curious how
you manage to get your cake and eat it too :)
- Bucky
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Schaber | 2006-09-26 22:39:09 | Re: Decreasing BLKSZ |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-26 22:09:56 | Re: Merge Join vs Nested Loop |