From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
To: josh@agliodbs.com
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:34:53 -0700
Message-ID: <41487D3D.1040509@joeconway.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200409151028.08461.josh@agliodbs.com>
References: <28292295$109523922141480635ce12a8.90913606@config17.schlund.de>
<41485CA6.1080505@joeconway.com>
<200409151028.08461.josh@agliodbs.com>
Josh Berkus wrote:
>> - the use of inherited tables to partition this huge number of rows and
>> yet allow simple query access to it seems to work well, at least in
>> early validation tests
>> - had we simply taken the original database and "slammed" it into
>> Postgres with no further thought, we would not have seen the big
>> improvements, and thus the project might have been seen as a failure
>> (even though it saves substantial $)
>
>
> Any further thoughts on developing this into true table partitioning?
>
Just that I'd love to see it happen ;-)
Maybe someday I'll be able to find the time to work on it myself, but
for the moment I'm satisfied with the workarounds we've made.
Joe
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: mail@joeconway.com, josh@agliodbs.com, cbbrowne@acm.org
Subject: Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --
In-Reply-To: <41487D3D.1040509@joeconway.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