| From: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning? |
| Date: | 2005-03-20 20:22:57 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.62.0503202315070.5508@ra.sai.msu.su |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> whole system make a lot more sense: individual partitions are really
>> tables. The partitioned tables themselves are just meta-objects like views.
If partition is a table, so I could define different indices for them ?
In our prototype of scaled full text search we create another index
which is optimized for "archived" (not changed) data - it's sort of
standard inverted index which is proven to be scaled, while tsearch2's index
is good for "online" data. All interfaces ( dictionaries, parsers, ranking)
are the same, so it's possible to combine search results.
This is rather easy to implement using table inheritance, but I'd like
to do this with partitioning
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2005-03-20 22:18:35 | Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning? |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-03-20 20:03:41 | Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning? |