Juan Pereira wrote:
> Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>
> >> You're almost always better off using a single table with a composite
> >> primary key like (truckid, datapointid) or whatever. If you'll be doing
> >> lots of queries that focus on individual vehicles and expect performance
> >> issues then you could partition the table by truckid, so you actually do
> >> land up with one table per truck, but transparently accessible via table
> >> inheritance so you can still query them all together.
>
> Quite interesting!
>
> The main reason why we thought using a table per truck was because
> concurrent load: if there are 100 trucks trying to write in the same table,
> maybe the performance is worse than having 100 tables, due to the fact that
> the table is blocked for other queries while the writing process is running,
> isn't it?
Wow, you are carrying around a lot of MySQL baggage with you. ;-)
You should probably read this:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/mvcc-intro.html
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
