Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC2B9FBD2D for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:06:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 47259-06 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:06:06 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62689FB356 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:06:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from trofast.sesse.net ([129.241.93.32]) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HvhAH-0000sN-Ld for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:06:09 +0200 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1HvhAH-0002ZR-00 for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:06:09 +0200 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 00:06:09 +0200 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? Message-ID: <20070605220609.GA9835@uio.no> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <1180980943.31471.322.camel@archimedes> <46645DD9.7030805@soliantconsulting.com> <877iqjmro5.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <46647427.4030103@g2switchworks.com> <466593E5.1010904@g2switchworks.com> <87sl96z0wf.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <10525.1181080765@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10525.1181080765@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.20.4 on a x86_64 X-Message-Flag: Outlook? --> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/82 X-Sequence-Number: 25115 On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I think the main argument for partitioning is when you are interested in > being able to drop whole partitions cheaply. Wasn't there also talk about adding the ability to mark individual partitions as read-only, thus bypassing MVCC and allowing queries to be satisfied using indexes only? Not that I think I've seen it on the TODO... :-) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/