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

From david@lang.hm
Subject Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.64.0706051557070.24361@asgard.lang.hm
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?  ("Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>)
Responses Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:

> 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... :-)

now that's a very interesting idea, especially when combined with
time-based data where the old times will never change.

David Lang

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: david@lang.hm
Date:
Subject: Re: Thousands of tables versus on table?
Next
From: weiping
Date:
Subject: weird query plan