Re: TB-sized databases - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Michael Stone
Subject Re: TB-sized databases
Date
Msg-id 20071206195030.GQ5294@mathom.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TB-sized databases  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 11:13:18AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Indeed, and if you've got examples where it's that far off, you should
>report them.

Yeah, the trick is to get it to a digestable test case. The basic
scenario (there are more tables & columns in the actual case) is a set
of tables partitioned by date with a number of columns in one table
referencing rows in the others:

Table A (~5bn rows / 100's of partitions)
time Bkey1 Ckey1 Bkey2 Ckey2

Table B (~1bn rows / 100's of partitions)
Bkey Bval

Table C (~.5bn rows / 100's of partitions)
Ckey Cval

Bkey and Ckey are unique, but the planner doesn't know that.

Mike Stone

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: TB-sized databases
Next
From: Mark Cave-Ayland
Date:
Subject: Re: Evaluation of PG performance vs MSDE/MSSQL 2000 (not 2005)