From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Russell Smith <mr-russ@pws.com.au>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:40:19 +0000
Message-ID: <1196412019.4246.1476.camel@ebony.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <474FB0B1.6070900@pws.com.au>
References: <4544e0330711260904g45d893a8ub1731e245aa8fc84@mail.gmail.com>
<474B1407.3090607@laotraesquina.com.ar>
<474B1B8C.1030505@gmail.com>
<4544e0330711271218h56ce4cc3p280a9fefff24583d@mail.gmail.com>
<1196197045.4246.1154.camel@ebony.site>
<474CA2FA.2020201@laotraesquina.com.ar>
<1196270908.4246.1250.camel@ebony.site>
<474FB0B1.6070900@pws.com.au>
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 17:41 +1100, Russell Smith wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 18:06 -0500, Pablo Alcaraz wrote:
> >
> >> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>
> >>> All of those responses have cooked up quite a few topics into one. Large
> >>> databases might mean text warehouses, XML message stores, relational
> >>> archives and fact-based business data warehouses.
> >>>
> >>> The main thing is that TB-sized databases are performance critical. So
> >>> it all depends upon your workload really as to how well PostgreSQL, or
> >>> another other RDBMS vendor can handle them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, my reason for replying to this thread is that I'm planning
> >>> changes for PostgreSQL 8.4+ that will make allow us to get bigger and
> >>> faster databases. If anybody has specific concerns then I'd like to hear
> >>> them so I can consider those things in the planning stages
> >>>
> >> it would be nice to do something with selects so we can recover a rowset
> >> on huge tables using a criteria with indexes without fall running a full
> >> scan.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, by definition, a huge database sooner or later will have
> >> tables far bigger than RAM available (same for their indexes). I think
> >> the queries need to be solved using indexes enough smart to be fast on disk.
> >>
> >
> > OK, I agree with this one.
> >
> > I'd thought that index-only plans were only for OLTP, but now I see they
> > can also make a big difference with DW queries. So I'm very interested
> > in this area now.
> >
> >
> If that's true, then you want to get behind the work Gokulakannan
> Somasundaram
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-10/msg00220.php) has
> done with relation to thick indexes. I would have thought that concept
> particularly useful in DW. Only having to scan indexes on a number of
> join tables would be a huge win for some of these types of queries.
Hmm, well I proposed that in Jan/Feb, but I'm sure others have also.
I don't think its practical to add visibility information to *all*
indexes, but I like Heikki's Visibility Map proposal much better.
> My tiny point of view would say that is a much better investment than
> setting up the proposed parameter.
They are different things entirely, with dissimilar dev costs also. We
can have both.
> I can see the use of the parameter
> though.
Good
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, mr-russ@pws.com.au
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
In-Reply-To: <1196412019.4246.1476.camel@ebony.site>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox