From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Iain <iain@mst.co.jp>
To: 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: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:39:10 +0100
Message-ID: <NOEFLCFHBPDAFHEIPGBOMEKJCEAA.simon@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00fb01c49bcc$c08dd210$7201a8c0@mst1x5r347kymb>
> Iain
> Joe's example wasn't excluding partions, as he didn't use a
> predicated UNION
> ALL view to select from. His queries use an indexed column that allow the
> various partitions to be probed at low cost, and he was satisfied
> wth that.
Agreed - very very interesting design though.
> My point in my previous post was that you could still do all that that if
> you wanted to, by building the predicated view with UNION ALL of
> each of the
> child tables.
>
AFAICS of all the designs proposed there is still only one design *using
current PostgreSQL* that allows partitions to be excluded from queries as a
way of speeding up queries against very large tables: UNION ALL with
appended constants.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
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: simon@2ndquadrant.com, iain@mst.co.jp, mail@joeconway.com, cbbrowne@acm.org
Subject: Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --
In-Reply-To: <NOEFLCFHBPDAFHEIPGBOMEKJCEAA.simon@2ndquadrant.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