From: | Luca Ferrari <fluca1978(at)infinito(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | James David Smith <james(dot)david(dot)smith(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: General 'big data' advice.... |
Date: | 2013-08-05 13:33:39 |
Message-ID: | CAKoxK+4CqcBYJiq=2E1PeLwwe6FC+_Hqai6NGYrB6kghpO5ZgA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:38 PM, James David Smith
<james(dot)david(dot)smith(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 1) Is PostgreSQL going to be able to cope with this? In terms of the
> table size? I think so...
>
Yes.
> 2) My columns will be something like
> person_id integer,
> person_timestamp timestamp,
> person_location_geom geometry
> Any thoughts on those? The format of the columns?
>
I would think about partitioning data on person_id (ranges) or
person_timestamp (ranges) so to have a few smaller tables than a huge
table.
> 3) I'll probably create a Primary Key which is a combination of
> person_id and person_timestamp. Does this sound like a good idea?
>
Is the same person at different timestamps a different person for your logic?
> 4) Should I use some indexes to improve performance maybe?
It depends on which queries you are going to run, on which is
organized your database (partitioning or not) and other details.
Luca
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Birchall, Austen | 2013-08-05 13:45:44 | Running psql commands from a remote location & pg_hba.conf? |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-08-05 11:59:47 | Re: General 'big data' advice.... |