| From: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Growth planning |
| Date: | 2021-10-04 20:46:12 |
| Message-ID: | cb94141f-bcc9-e045-3624-21a5c8f858b8@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 10/4/21 12:36 PM, Israel Brewster wrote:
[snip]
> Indeed. Table per station as opposed to partitioning? The *most* I can
> reasonably envision needing is to query two stations, i.e. I could see
> potentially wanting to compare station a to some “baseline” station b. In
> general, though, the stations are independent, and it seems unlikely that
> we will need any multi-station queries. Perhaps query one station, then a
> second query for a second to display graphs for both side-by-side to look
> for correlations or something, but nothing like that has been suggested at
> the moment.
>
Postgresql partitions *are* tables. What if you partition by station (or
range of stations)?
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Israel Brewster | 2021-10-04 21:09:36 | Re: Growth planning |
| Previous Message | Alban Hertroys | 2021-10-04 20:29:05 | Re: Growth planning |