Re: Thousands of tables versus on table? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Steinar H. Gunderson
Subject Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date
Msg-id 20070605220609.GA9835@uio.no
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?  (david@lang.hm)
Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?  (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>)
List pgsql-performance
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the main argument for partitioning is when you are interested in
> being able to drop whole partitions cheaply.

Wasn't there also talk about adding the ability to mark individual partitions
as read-only, thus bypassing MVCC and allowing queries to be satisfied using
indexes only?

Not that I think I've seen it on the TODO... :-)

/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: performance drop on 8.2.4, reverting to 8.1.4