On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:00 PM, sam mulube wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we are considering database partitioning as a possible solution to
> some performance issues we are having with our database, and we are
> trying to decide on a partitioning scheme. We have a moderately write
> heavy application (approx
Vick Khera wrote:
The drawback to partitioning by an ID number using modulo is that for
constraint exclusion to work you have to actually add something like
"AND (my_id % 42) = 0" to match the constraint. The exclusion is not
done by executing the constraint, but by proving the constraint will
h
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:20 AM, sam mulube wrote:
> Inserting directly into the specific partition is interesting, but if
> you're going to go down that route then aren't you starting to
> implement the partitioning yourself in application code. In that case
> what benefit does keeping the Postg
Hi Vick,
Currently we aren't deleting anything due to business requirements
though at some point we will have to start deleting out some data. I
suspect when we do it won't be as simple as just dropping the oldest
data; some customers will have data that we want to keep permanently,
while others w
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:00 PM, sam mulube wrote:
> Alternatively we wondered about partitioning by the server_id foreign
> key, using for example the modulo of the foreign key id. This would
> give us a finite number of partitions (rather than the potentially
> unbounded date option), and would
Hi,
we are considering database partitioning as a possible solution to
some performance issues we are having with our database, and we are
trying to decide on a partitioning scheme. We have a moderately write
heavy application (approx 50 inserts per second, with writes
outnumbering reads by roughl
On Saturday 22 March 2008 09:39, Reece Hart wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 23:00 -0400, Ram Ravichandran wrote:
> > I assume that primary key
> > uniqueness is not tested across tables. Right?
>
> That's correct. It's on the TODOs:
> Inheritance
> * Allow inherited tables to inherit indexes,
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 23:00 -0400, Ram Ravichandran wrote:
> I assume that primary key
> uniqueness is not tested across tables. Right?
That's correct. It's on the TODOs:
Inheritance
* Allow inherited tables to inherit indexes, UNIQUE constraints,
and primary/foreign keys
(at http
Thanks for the quick response. And I assume that primary key
uniqueness is not tested across tables. Right?
Thanks,
Ram
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2008, at 7:15 PM, Ram Ravichandran wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > Suppose I have a table with t
On Mar 21, 2008, at 7:15 PM, Ram Ravichandran wrote:
Hey,
Suppose I have a table with the following fields:
CREATE TABLE distributors (
id DECIMAL(3) PRIMARY KEY,
nameVARCHAR(40),
status INTEGER
);
I would ike to partition this table based on status which can be
[0,1,2,3
Hey,
Suppose I have a table with the following fields:
CREATE TABLE distributors (
id DECIMAL(3) PRIMARY KEY,
nameVARCHAR(40),
status INTEGER
);
I would ike to partition this table based on status which can be [0,1,2,3,4].
I was wondering if the records can change their
11 matches
Mail list logo
