pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedTable Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future? (splitting large Tables)
7+ messages / 6 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future? (splitting large Tables)
@ 2005-04-26 08:07 apoc9009@yahoo.de <apoc9009@yahoo.de>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: apoc9009@yahoo.de @ 2005-04-26 08:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
Hi all,
Ia a Guy from Germany an a strong Postgres believer!
It is the best OpenSource Database i have ever have bee tasted and i
try to using
it in any Database Environments.
It is exiting to see thadt Verison 8.0 has Tablespaces like ORACLE and DB/2,
but i need Partitioning on a few very large Tables.
The Tabeles are not verry complex, but it is extremely Large (1 GByte
and above)
and i think Table Partitioning is the right Way to spiltt them off on
some physical
Harddrives. Iam not sure thadt a common Harddrive RAID or SAN Storage
System will do it for me. The ORACLE Table Partitioning Features are verry
usefull but my favorite Datebase is PSQL.
Is there any Plans thadt Postgres will support Partitioning in the near
Future?
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future?
@ 2005-04-26 08:22 Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
parent: apoc9009@yahoo.de <apoc9009@yahoo.de>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Richard Huxton @ 2005-04-26 08:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: apoc9009@yahoo.de; +Cc: pgsql-performance
apoc9009@yahoo.de wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Ia a Guy from Germany an a strong Postgres believer!
> It is the best OpenSource Database i have ever have bee tasted and i
> try to using
> it in any Database Environments.
>
> It is exiting to see thadt Verison 8.0 has Tablespaces like ORACLE and
> DB/2,
> but i need Partitioning on a few very large Tables.
I believe these are being worked on at the moment. You might want to
search the archives of the hackers mailing list to see if the plans will
suit your needs.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future?
@ 2005-04-26 09:57 apoc9009@yahoo.de <apoc9009@yahoo.de>
parent: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: apoc9009@yahoo.de @ 2005-04-26 09:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
Hmm,
I have asked some Peoples on the List an some one has posted this links
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-12/msg00101.php
It is quite usefull to read but iam not sure thadt theese Trick is verry
helpfull.
I want to splitt my 1GByte Table into some little Partitions but how
should i do thadt?
With the ORACLE Partitioning Option, i can Configurering my Table withe
Enterprise
Manager or SQL Plus but in this case it looks like Trap.
Should i really decrease my Tabledata size and spread them to other
Tables with the
same Structure by limiting Records???
The next Problem i see, how should i do a Insert/Update/Delete on 4
Tables of the
same Structure at one Query???
No missunderstanding. We talking not about normalization or
restructuring the Colums
of a table. We talking about Partitioning and in this case at Postgres
(emultation
of Partitioning wir UNIONS for Performance tuning)..
Josh
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future?
@ 2005-04-26 15:53 Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>
parent: apoc9009@yahoo.de <apoc9009@yahoo.de>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Pflug @ 2005-04-26 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: apoc9009@yahoo.de; +Cc: pgsql-performance
apoc9009@yahoo.de wrote:
> Hmm,
>
> I have asked some Peoples on the List an some one has posted this links
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-12/msg00101.php
>
> It is quite usefull to read but iam not sure thadt theese Trick is verry
> helpfull.
>
> I want to splitt my 1GByte Table into some little Partitions but how
> should i do thadt?
> With the ORACLE Partitioning Option, i can Configurering my Table withe
> Enterprise
> Manager or SQL Plus but in this case it looks like Trap.
>
> Should i really decrease my Tabledata size and spread them to other
> Tables with the
> same Structure by limiting Records???
>
> The next Problem i see, how should i do a Insert/Update/Delete on 4
> Tables of the
> same Structure at one Query???
>
> No missunderstanding. We talking not about normalization or
> restructuring the Colums
> of a table. We talking about Partitioning and in this case at Postgres
> (emultation
> of Partitioning wir UNIONS for Performance tuning)..
From your description I don't see evidence that you should need to
partition your table at all. A 1GB table is very common for pgsql. Spend
some hard disks on your storage subsystem and you'll gain the
performance you want, without trouble on the SQL side. For specific
requirements, you might see improvements from partial indexes.
Regards,
Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future?
@ 2005-04-26 16:58 Mohan, Ross <RMohan@arbinet.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Mohan, Ross @ 2005-04-26 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
Maybe he needs to spend $7K on performance improvements?
;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:00 PM
To: Richard Huxton
Cc: apoc9009@yahoo.de; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future?
Richard,
> I believe these are being worked on at the moment. You might want to
> search the archives of the hackers mailing list to see if the plans
> will suit your needs.
Actually, this is being discussed through the Bizgres project:
www.bizgres.org.
However, I agree that a 1GB table is not in need of partitioning.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future?
@ 2005-04-27 00:00 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
parent: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Josh Berkus @ 2005-04-27 00:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>; +Cc: apoc9009@yahoo.de; pgsql-performance
Richard,
> I believe these are being worked on at the moment. You might want to
> search the archives of the hackers mailing list to see if the plans will
> suit your needs.
Actually, this is being discussed through the Bizgres project:
www.bizgres.org.
However, I agree that a 1GB table is not in need of partitioning.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future?
@ 2005-04-27 00:42 Mike Rylander <mrylander@gmail.com>
parent: Mohan, Ross <RMohan@arbinet.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Mike Rylander @ 2005-04-27 00:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mohan, Ross <RMohan@arbinet.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On 4/26/05, Mohan, Ross <RMohan@arbinet.com> wrote:
> Maybe he needs to spend $7K on performance improvements?
>
> ;-)
>
AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!
I will forever hate the number 7,000 from this day forth!
Seriously, though, I've never seen a thread on any list wander on so
aimlessly for so long.
Please, mommy, make it stop!
--
Mike Rylander
mrylander@gmail.com
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer
http://open-ils.org
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-04-27 00:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-04-26 08:07 Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future? (splitting large Tables) apoc9009@yahoo.de <apoc9009@yahoo.de>
2005-04-26 08:22 ` Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future? Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
2005-04-26 09:57 ` Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future? apoc9009@yahoo.de <apoc9009@yahoo.de>
2005-04-26 15:53 ` Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future? Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>
2005-04-27 00:00 ` Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future? Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
2005-04-26 16:58 Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future? Mohan, Ross <RMohan@arbinet.com>
2005-04-27 00:42 ` Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future? Mike Rylander <mrylander@gmail.com>
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