From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bartel Viljoen <bartel(at)ncc(dot)co(dot)za> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Schemas vs partitioning vs multiple databases for archiving |
Date: | 2012-08-18 19:16:19 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1yAtWYgoMU3kZJLNdO8px2SyFBVnsL35iP2Cbq5yZqh2g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Bartel Viljoen <bartel(at)ncc(dot)co(dot)za> 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.
>
How do you know that memory is the reason? What behavior or
monitoring-tool output are you seeing that leads you to that conclusion?
> I don’t want to delete old child tables even though they may be queried
> seldom
>
If you did delete the old child tables, would it solve the problem? If the
problem is showing up specifically on inserts, and the inserts are
happening directly into the leading-edge partition, then older child tables
shouldn't have anything to do with it.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Flower | 2012-08-19 04:30:02 | Re: Schemas vs partitioning vs multiple databases for archiving |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-18 17:22:12 | Re: Schemas vs partitioning vs multiple databases for archiving |