Re: Schemas vs partitioning vs multiple databases for archiving

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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