Re: [PERFORM] Table Partitions / Partial Indexes

2005-12-13 Thread Mike C
On 12/14/05, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe not for queries, but if you use a date range then you never needto run a DELETE and never need to VACUUM.You could split the data into two-day chunks. That's an interesting idea, thanks. > Am I using a horrid method for partitioning the data

Re: [PERFORM] Table Partitions / Partial Indexes

2005-12-13 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 15:07 +1300, Mike C wrote: > Partitioning on date range doesn't make much sense for this setup, > where a typical 1-month query spans both tables (as the billing month > for the customer might start midway through a calendar month). Maybe not for queries, but if you use a da

Re: [PERFORM] Table Partitions / Partial Indexes

2005-12-11 Thread Mike C
On 12/12/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mike C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> CLUSTER on PC_TRAFFIC_IDX3 gives me significantly improved performance:How can you tell?  Neither of these are EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. regards, tom lane Sorry that's a result of my bad reco

Re: [PERFORM] Table Partitions / Partial Indexes

2005-12-11 Thread Tom Lane
Mike C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > CLUSTER on PC_TRAFFIC_IDX3 gives me significantly improved performance: How can you tell? Neither of these are EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: d