From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman@gmail.com>
To: Nickolay <nitro@zhukcity.ru>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PG optimization question
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 12:18:04 +0000
Message-ID: <2f4958ff1001090418i78dee992t5ff2d78a54187c07@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B485975.70506@zhukcity.ru>
References: <4B485975.70506@zhukcity.ru>
maybe that 'one big table' needs something called 'normalisation'
first. See how much that will shed off. You might be surprised.
The partitioning needs to be done by some constant intervals, of time
- in your case. Whatever suits you, I would suggest to use the rate
that will give you both ease of archiving/removal of old data (so not
too wide), and also, one that would make sure that most of the data
you'll be searching for in your queries will be in one , two
partitions per query.
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: gryzman@gmail.com, nitro@zhukcity.ru
Subject: Re: PG optimization question
In-Reply-To: <2f4958ff1001090418i78dee992t5ff2d78a54187c07@mail.gmail.com>
* 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