Thread: Physical Database Configuration
(Resurrecting a subject I found searching the archives...) Newbie. We're investigating replacing our Oracle databases with PostgreSQL. Our largest database is currently 25 GB and growing. It contains time sequenced data. Under Oracle, we use a partitioned tablespace for the busiest table, so that we can remove old partitions after an aging period. This one table is the majority of that 25 GB. I saw in the referenced sequence of posts that PostgreSQL will close a file for a table once it reaches 1 GB, and start a new file. So I'm concluding PostgreSQL has the ability to span multiple files for a single table. Is there any way for me to control that, so I can get PostgreSQL to start a new file on the 1st of each month? Or is this planned for tablespaces, which I also saw discussed. Thanks. -- Guy Rouillier
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Guy Rouillier wrote: > (Resurrecting a subject I found searching the archives...) > > Newbie. We're investigating replacing our Oracle databases with > PostgreSQL. Our largest database is currently 25 GB and growing. It > contains time sequenced data. Under Oracle, we use a partitioned > tablespace for the busiest table, so that we can remove old partitions > after an aging period. This one table is the majority of that 25 GB. > > I saw in the referenced sequence of posts that PostgreSQL will close a > file for a table once it reaches 1 GB, and start a new file. So I'm > concluding PostgreSQL has the ability to span multiple files for a > single table. Is there any way for me to control that, so I can get > PostgreSQL to start a new file on the 1st of each month? Or is this > planned for tablespaces, which I also saw discussed. Not really, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. What you can do is create a table for each month, then create a view on top of those tables.
Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:53:47 -0600, > Guy Rouillier <guyr@masergy.com> wrote: >> >> I saw in the referenced sequence of posts that PostgreSQL will close >> a file for a table once it reaches 1 GB, and start a new file. So >> I'm concluding PostgreSQL has the ability to span multiple files for >> a single table. Is there any way for me to control that, so I can >> get PostgreSQL to start a new file on the 1st of each month? Or is >> this planned for tablespaces, which I also saw discussed. > > Currently there is no way to force starting a new file. Thanks for all replies () I'll follow the leads into the archives for how to do this with views. I actually sent this earlier directly to Tom by mistake. I got tripped up on replying. This is the first list I've encountered where "Reply To" is set to the individual poster rather than the list. Is that on purpose? (dumb question, I know - of course it is on purpose - but why?) -- Guy Rouillier
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:53:47 -0600, Guy Rouillier <guyr@masergy.com> wrote: > > I saw in the referenced sequence of posts that PostgreSQL will close a > file for a table once it reaches 1 GB, and start a new file. So I'm > concluding PostgreSQL has the ability to span multiple files for a > single table. Is there any way for me to control that, so I can get > PostgreSQL to start a new file on the 1st of each month? Or is this > planned for tablespaces, which I also saw discussed. Currently there is no way to force starting a new file.
"Guy Rouillier" <guyr@masergy.com> writes:
> Under Oracle, we use a partitioned
> tablespace for the busiest table, so that we can remove old partitions
> after an aging period. This one table is the majority of that 25 GB.
We don't have any direct support for that, but some people fake it by
using inheritance or views to make several independent tables look like
one big table. You can find discussions in the archives.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 16:34:48 -0600, Guy Rouillier <guyr@masergy.com> wrote: > > I actually sent this earlier directly to Tom by mistake. I got tripped > up on replying. This is the first list I've encountered where "Reply > To" is set to the individual poster rather than the list. Is that on > purpose? (dumb question, I know - of course it is on purpose - but why?) Yes. You shouldn't be using reply to sender to reply to the list. Your mail client should have at least one of reply to all, reply to list or reply to recipients that you can use to send mail back to the list. Where more than one of these is available, people will disaggree on which one is more appropiate. As for one opinion on why reply-to headers shouldn't be munged, see: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes: > As for one opinion on why reply-to headers shouldn't be munged, see: > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Also note that the PG lists do *not* insert any reply-to headers (I quite agree with the above link's reasons why the list bot should not do so). Any reply-to you see in a list message was put there by the message author. regards, tom lane
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:03:56 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to> writes: > > As for one opinion on why reply-to headers shouldn't be munged, see: > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > Also note that the PG lists do *not* insert any reply-to headers > (I quite agree with the above link's reasons why the list bot should > not do so). Any reply-to you see in a list message was put there > by the message author. <AOL> Me Too! </AOL> i've been running internet mailing lists since the mid-80s, and there are so many things that explicit reply-to breaks or places at risk that it's not even funny. just say NO to reply-to! richard -- Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security