Message-ID: <41487D3D.1040509@joeconway.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:34:53 -0700
From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: josh@agliodbs.com
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --
References: <28292295$109523922141480635ce12a8.90913606@config17.schlund.de>
	<41485CA6.1080505@joeconway.com>
	<200409151028.08461.josh@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <200409151028.08461.josh@agliodbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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