Re: Quick Performance Poll
От | Jim Buttafuoco |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Quick Performance Poll |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20060420143830.M5360@contactbda.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Quick Performance Poll ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Quick Performance Poll
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
First of all this is NOT a single table and yes I am using partitioning and the constaint exclusion stuff. the largest set of tables is over 2T. I have not had to rebuild the biggest database yet, but for a smaller one ~1T the restore takes about 12 hours including many indexes on both large and small tables Jim ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com> To: jim@contactbda.com, "Simon Dale" <sdale@rm.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Sent: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:31:33 -0700 Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Quick Performance Poll > Jim, > > On 4/20/06 6:36 AM, "Jim Buttafuoco" <jim@contactbda.com> wrote: > > > The access is very fast when looking for a small subset of the data. > > I guess you are not using indexes because building a (non bitmap) index on > 6TB on a single machine would take days if not weeks. > > So if you are using table partitioning, do you have to refer to each child > table separately in your queries? > > - Luke > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly ------- End of Original Message -------
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: