From: "Jim Buttafuoco" <jim@contactbda.com>
To: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>, "Simon Dale" <sdale@rm.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Reply-To: jim@contactbda.com
Subject: Re: Quick Performance Poll
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:40:50 -0400
Message-Id: <20060420143830.M5360@contactbda.com>
In-Reply-To: <C06CE955.21E1C%llonergan@greenplum.com>
References: <20060420133326.M88248@contactbda.com>
	<C06CE955.21E1C%llonergan@greenplum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=iso-8859-1

First of all this is NOT a single table and yes I am using partitioning and the constaint exclusion stuff.  the largest
set of tables is over 2T.  I have not had to rebuild the biggest database yet, but for a smaller one ~1T the restore
takes about 12 hours including many indexes on both large and small tables

Jim


---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: jim@contactbda.com, "Simon Dale" <sdale@rm.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Sent: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:31:33 -0700
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Quick Performance Poll

> Jim,
> 
> On 4/20/06 6:36 AM, "Jim Buttafuoco" <jim@contactbda.com> wrote:
> 
> > The access is very fast when looking for a small subset of the data.
> 
> I guess you are not using indexes because building a (non bitmap) index on
> 6TB on a single machine would take days if not weeks.
> 
> So if you are using table partitioning, do you have to refer to each child
> table separately in your queries?
> 
> - Luke
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>        subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>        message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
------- End of Original Message -------