Re: code question: storing INTO relation
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: code question: storing INTO relation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1098733771.6807.14.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: code question: storing INTO relation (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 00:29, Greg Stark wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > > I agree, hence why this should be a user option. The usage of this is > > restricted to particular classes of database usage: data warehousing or > > very large database applications. This isn't intended for use in OLTP or > > web-site databases. > > Well a lot of users also just don't use online backups. For these users > there's no downside to CREATE INDEX/REINDEX/CREATE TABLE AS not logging. > Yes, you're right. I'm just aiming higher, that's all... A DW with large fact tables will benefit from the optimisation, since the data loading can often be used to recover the database if required. Reference data tables don't benefit from the optimization since they are smaller and much easier to backup/recover. We want to join the fact tables to the reference data tables, so would like both to exist in a database that has BOTH PITR and non-logged bulk operations. The alternative is to have an ODS that uses PITR, alongside a DW that doesn't, though with data copying from the ODS to the DW. The latter step is a time-waster I see no reason to encourage. Anyway... I see no huge agreement with my viewpoint, so I'll just add it to my own list... -- Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: