Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
От | Rod Taylor |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1147882573.23427.3.camel@home обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Actually, I suspect in most cases it won't matter; I don't think people > make a habit of trying to sort their entire database. :) But we'd want > to protect for the oddball cases... yech. I can make query result sets that are far larger than the database itself. create table fat_table_with_few_tuples(fat_status_id serial primary key, fat_1 text, fat_2 text); create table thin_table_with_many_tuples(fat_status_id integer references fat_table_with_few_tuples, thin_1 integer, thin_2 integer); SELECT * FROM thin_table_with_many_tuples NATURAL JOIN fat_table_with_few_tuples order by fat_1, thin_1, thin_2, fat_2; I would be asking the folks trying to use PostgreSQL for data warehousing what their opinion is. A few fact tables in an audit query could easily result in a very large amount of temporary diskspace being required. --
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: