From: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
To: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:17:45 -0700
Message-ID: <414921F9.400@joeconway.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m34qm06osz.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com>
References: <20040914223333.GL56059@decibel.org>
<NOEFLCFHBPDAFHEIPGBOEEHPCEAA.simon@2ndquadrant.com>
<60k6uw1cqa.fsf@dev6.int.libertyrms.info>
<4147C560.9060702@joeconway.com>
<m34qm06osz.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com>
Christopher Browne wrote:
> In the last exciting episode, mail@joeconway.com (Joe Conway) wrote:
>>That's exactly what we're doing, but using inherited tables instead of
>>a union view. With inheritance, there is no need to rebuild the view
>>each time a table is added or removed. Basically, in our application,
>>tables are partitioned by either month or week, depending on the type
>>of data involved, and queries are normally date qualified.
> Where does the constraint come in that'll allow most of the data to be
> excluded?
Not sure I follow this.
> Or is this just that the entries are all part of "bigtable" so that
> the self join is only 2-way?
We don't have a need for self-joins in our application. We do use a
crosstab function to materialize some transposed views of the data,
however. That allows us to avoid self-joins in the cases where we might
otherwise need them.
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, cbbrowne@acm.org
Subject: Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --
In-Reply-To: <414921F9.400@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