Re: general question on two-partition table - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: general question on two-partition table
Date
Msg-id 407d949e0907271724w72bca6cfva8eec333ddc4a0a3@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: general question on two-partition table  (David Wilson <david.t.wilson@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: general question on two-partition table
List pgsql-general
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:08 AM, David Wilson<david.t.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Janet Jacobsen<jsjacobsen@lbl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Can you suggest other strategies?
>
> Something that might be easier to play with is to create a (or
> several, to speed up other queries) functional index on the comparison
> between rbscore and the cutoff.

I think it would be even more interesting to have partial indexes --
ie specified with "WHERE rbscore < cutoff".

I'm actually wondering if partitioning is really what you want. You
might prefer to just keep two entirely separate tables. One that has
all the data and one that has a second copy of the desirable subset.
Kind of like a "materialized view" of a simple query with the where
clause of "rbscore < cutoff".


--
greg
http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: David Wilson
Date:
Subject: Re: general question on two-partition table
Next
From: David Wilson
Date:
Subject: Re: general question on two-partition table