Re: [PERFORM] Table partitioning problem

2011-03-15 Thread Samba GUEYE
hi Thanks again very much for these clear-cut answers I think i'll try to implement the partitionning despite all the difficulties you raise about it in this thread because i can't find any viable solution right now for this situation. It will constrain me to change the datamodel to workaround

Re: [PERFORM] Table partitioning problem

2011-03-15 Thread Shaun Thomas
On 03/15/2011 05:10 AM, Samba GUEYE wrote: 1. Why "... partitionning is not a good idea ..." like you said Robert and Conor "... I grant that it would be better to never need to do that" ? There are a number of difficulties the planner has with partitioned tables. Only until very recently, MA

Re: [PERFORM] Table partitioning problem

2011-03-15 Thread Samba GUEYE
Alright thanks all of you for your answers, but i've got 3 more questions : 1. Why "... partitionning is not a good idea ..." like you said Robert and Conor "... I grant that it would be better to never need to do that" ? 2. Is there another way or strategy to deal with very large t

Re: [PERFORM] Table partitioning problem

2011-03-14 Thread Conor Walsh
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Generally, table partitioning is not a good idea unless you are > dealing with really large tables, and nearly all of your queries apply > only to a single partition.  Most likely you are better off not using > table inheritance in the first p

Re: [PERFORM] Table partitioning problem

2011-03-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Samba GUEYE wrote: > Yeah but is there a workaround to force the root table to propagate the > foreign key to the partitionned table > because right now all foreign keys to partitionned table throws constraints > violation and it's a big problem for me No. Gener

Re: [PERFORM] Table partitioning problem

2011-03-14 Thread Samba GUEYE
Yeah but is there a workaround to force the root table to propagate the foreign key to the partitionned table because right now all foreign keys to partitionned table throws constraints violation and it's a big problem for me Le 11/03/2011 19:31, Robert Haas a écrit : On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:

Re: [PERFORM] Table partitioning problem

2011-03-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Samba GUEYE wrote: > The measure insertion is successful but problems raise up when inserting in > the simpleMeasure table because it can't find the foreign key inserted the > measure table and do not look at the partitionned tables Yes, that's how it works. --

Re: [PERFORM] Table partitioning problem

2011-03-10 Thread Samba GUEYE
Hi jim thanks for your answer, The database model is some' like that : Measure(Id, numbering,Date, crcCorrect, sensorId) and a SimpleMeasure (Id, doubleValue) and GenericMeasure (Id, BlobValue, numberOfElements) and in the UML model SimpleMeasure and GenericMeasure inherits from the Measure cla

Re: [PERFORM] Table partitioning problem

2011-03-09 Thread Jim Nasby
On Mar 8, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Samba GUEYE wrote: > I have a problem with table partitioning because i have a foreign key applied > on the partionned table and it throw a constraint violation error during > inserts. > I saw on the manual > (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/ddl-inherit

[PERFORM] Table partitioning problem

2011-03-08 Thread Samba GUEYE
Hello, I have a problem with table partitioning because i have a foreign key applied on the partionned table and it throw a constraint violation error during inserts. I saw on the manual (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/ddl-inherit.html caveats section) that it's a limitation du