Re: Storing sensor data

From: Kenneth Marshall
Subject: Re: Storing sensor data
Date: ,
Msg-id: 20090528171213.GG18879@it.is.rice.edu
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Storing sensor data  (Ivan Voras)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Storing sensor data  (Ivan Voras, )
 Re: Storing sensor data  (Heikki Linnakangas, )
  Re: Storing sensor data  (Nikolas Everett, )
   Re: Storing sensor data  (Ivan Voras, )
  Re: Storing sensor data  (Ivan Voras, )
   Re: Storing sensor data  (Kenneth Marshall, )
    Re: Storing sensor data  (Ivan Voras, )
     Re: Storing sensor data  (Kenneth Marshall, )
   Re: Storing sensor data  (Greg Jaman, )
    Re: Storing sensor data  (Greg Jaman, )
 Re: Storing sensor data  (Alexander Staubo, )
  Re: Storing sensor data  (Ivan Voras, )
   Re: Storing sensor data  (Alexander Staubo, )
    Re: Storing sensor data  (Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz, )

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 05:24:33PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> 2009/5/28 Kenneth Marshall <>:
>
> >
> > One big benefit of partitioning is that you can prune old data with
> > minimal impact to the running system. Doing a large bulk delete would
> > be extremely I/O impacting without partion support. We use this for
> > a DB log system and it allows us to simply truncate a day table instead
> > of a delete -- much, much faster.
>
> Thanks. I'll need to investigate how much administrative overhead and
> fragility partitioning will introduce since the data will also be
> replicated between 2 servers (I'm thinking of using Slony). Any
> experience with this combination?
>

We use Slony1 on a number of databases, but none yet on which we
use data partitioning.

Cheers,
Ken


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Anne Rosset
Date:
Subject: Unexpected query plan results
From: Flavio Henrique Araque Gurgel
Date:
Subject: Re: Continuent (was: Postgres Clustering)