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

From Andrew Sullivan
Subject Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date
Msg-id 20070606192351.GC11545@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?  ("Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 12:06:09AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:

> 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?

I have a (different) problem that read-only data segments (maybe
partitions, maybe something else) would help, so I know for sure that
someone is working on a problem like this, but I don't think it's the
sort of thing that's going to come any time soon.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what
you told them to.  That actually seems sort of quaint now.
        --J.D. Baldwin

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jonah H. Harris"
Date:
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Next
From: Gunther Mayer
Date:
Subject: VERY slow queries at random