On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Jim Jennis wrote:
>>> Not only legacy apps, but data warehousing. Frequently in a production
>>> environment you use two sets of tables -- production and data
>>> warehousing...One (production) with "bare bones" indicies to maximize
>>> transaction performance, and one (a replicate in the data warehouse)
that
>>> you "index the living daylights out of" so that the non db saavy
managers
>>> who want to do ungodly joints and sorts on tables for organizational
>>> reporting get decent performance.
I'm so pleased to find out that somebody else has picked this up. In fact,
the summary tables that I'm working on are a kind of mini-warehouse, the
just happen to reside in the same tablespace as the transactional tables.
However, data warehousing is quite an important issue. I know that most of
the people who use PG work on transactional systems, but if anyone tries to
run even a small warehouse on PG it's going to get complicated very quickly.
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Dustin Sallings wrote:
>>> Creating lots of indices is far different from creating a single
>>> index on a lot of fields. Data warehousing is the former. The problem
is
>>> that you can't create a single index with a large number of fields.
Not entirely true. Sometimes the level of summary can require more than
seven fields in an index, normally the primary index.
MikeA...