[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Sullivan) writes: > It isn't clear to me why you think you need to do this: vacuum > doesn't block your queries anyway. If the idea is that you have a > table that you'd rather TRUNCATE and not have to vacuum, however, > that makes sense. There are several strategies for this. My > colleague Chris Browne seems really to like this kind of > functionality, and has discussed it more than once on the -general > list. I think you can find his detailed outlines of how to do this > sort of thing by searching for "rotor tables".
I'd suggest looking at the section in the documentation on Partitioning; the mechanisms there look like the Better Way these days. <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/ddl-partitioning.html> There were some things that were Pretty Neat about rotor tables; as of 8.1, the benefits gotten from constraint propagation with partitioning seems to make that a much more attractive way to go about things. There are always going to be some caveats for whatever mechanism is used to partition data; it looks like 8.1's constraint propagation pushes preference towards using inheritance... -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html "It is easier to optimize correct code, than correct optimized code" -- Yves Deville ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
