Re: Inheritence versus delete from
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Inheritence versus delete from |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 11427.1109639240@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Inheritence versus delete from (Sven Willenberger <sven@dmv.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
Sven Willenberger <sven@dmv.com> writes:
> 3) Each month:
> CREATE newmonth_dynamically_named_table (like mastertable) INHERITS
> (mastertable);
> modify the copy.sql script to copy newmonth_dynamically_named_table;
> pg_dump 3monthsago_dynamically_named_table for archiving;
> drop table 3monthsago_dynamically_named_table;
A number of people use the above approach. It's got some limitations,
mainly that the planner isn't super bright about what you are doing
--- in particular, joins involving such a table may work slowly.
On the whole I'd probably go with the other approach (one big table).
A possible win is to use CLUSTER rather than VACUUM ANALYZE to recover
space after your big deletes; however this assumes that you can schedule
downtime to do the CLUSTERs in.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: