Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08499FA251
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:46:38 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 67408-08 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:46:27 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: delayed 01:13:02.435507 by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from outbound2-fra-R.bigfish.com (outbound-fra.frontbridge.com
	[62.209.45.174])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 025539F9E92
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:46:30 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from outbound2-fra.bigfish.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by outbound2-fra-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774195F01A5
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:33:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail56-fra-R.bigfish.com (unknown [10.4.252.3])
	by outbound2-fra.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C45738091
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:33:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail56-fra (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by mail56-fra-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A39AD033A
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:33:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-BigFish: V
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Antispam-Report: OrigIP: 74.222.153.31;
 Service: EHS
Received: by mail56-fra (MessageSwitch) id 1189629202954860_14447;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:33:22 +0000 (UCT)
Received: from owa1.spimageworks.com (unknown [74.222.153.31])
	by mail56-fra.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CF7788083
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:33:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from alpha.spimageworks.com ([172.30.104.2]) by
	owa1.spimageworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:33:25 -0700
Message-ID: <46E84D15.8020600@imageworks.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:33:25 -0700
From: Matt Chambers <chambers@imageworks.com>
Reply-To: chambers@imageworks.com
Organization: Sony Pictures Imageworks
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: db performance/design question
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------040500050003070808090000"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2007 20:33:25.0397 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[2B43EC50:01C7F57C]
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200709/235
X-Sequence-Number: 26780

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040500050003070808090000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


I'm designing a system that will be doing over a million inserts/deletes 
on a single table every hour.  Rather than using a single table, it is 
possible for me to partition the data into multiple tables if I wanted 
to, which would be nice because I can just truncate them when I don't 
need them.  I could even use table spaces to split the IO load over 
multiple filers.  The application does not require all this data be in 
the same table.   The data is fairly temporary, it might last 5 seconds, 
it might last 2 days, but it will all be deleted eventually and 
different data will be created.

Considering a single table would grow to 10mil+ rows at max, and this 
machine will sustain about 25mbps of insert/update/delete traffic 24/7 - 
365, will I be saving much by partitioning data like that?

-- 
-Matt

<http://twiki.spimageworks.com/twiki/bin/view/Software/CueDevelopment>

--------------040500050003070808090000
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
I'm designing a system that will be doing over a million
inserts/deletes on a single table every hour.&nbsp; Rather than using a
single table, it is possible for me to partition the data into multiple
tables if I wanted to, which would be nice because I can just truncate
them when I don't need them.&nbsp; I could even use table spaces to split
the IO load over multiple filers.&nbsp; The application does not require all
this data be in the same table. &nbsp; The data is fairly temporary, it
might last 5 seconds, it might last 2 days, but it will all be deleted
eventually and different data will be created.<br>
<br>
Considering a single table would grow to 10mil+ rows at max, and this
machine will sustain about 25mbps of insert/update/delete traffic 24/7
- 365, will I be saving much by partitioning data like that?<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
-Matt<br>
<br>
<span style="font-size: 11px;"><a
 href="http://twiki.spimageworks.com/twiki/bin/view/Software/CueDevelopment"></a></span></div>
</body>
</html>

--------------040500050003070808090000--