Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2007-02-01 kell 12:31, kirjutas Tom Lane:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A more radical variation of the restricted-use archive table approach
is storing all tuple visibility info in a separate file.
At first it seems to just add overhead, but for lots (most ?
Jochem van Dieten wrote:
On 2/1/07, Chris Dunlop wrote:
In maillist.postgres.dev, you wrote:
Rather than writing in-place, perhaps the SET ARCHIVE would
create a on-disk copy of the table.
Just like CLUSTER does now: create an on-disk copy first and swap the
relfilenodes of the files and
On 2/1/07, Chris Dunlop wrote:
In maillist.postgres.dev, you wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Chris Dunlop wrote:
The main idea is that, there might be space utilisation and
performance advantages if postgres had hard read-only
tables, i.e. tables which were guaranteed (by postgres) to
never have
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:03 +1100, Chris Dunlop wrote:
A different approach discussed earlier involves greatly
restricting the way in which the table is used. This table
could only be written to if an exclusive lock is held; on
error or ABORT, the table is truncated.
You're talking
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2007-02-01 kell 13:24, kirjutas Gavin Sherry:
A different approach discussed earlier involves greatly restricting the
way in which the table is used. This table could only be written to if an
exclusive lock is held; on error or ABORT, the table is truncated.
The
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2007-02-01 kell 14:38, kirjutas Hannu Krosing:
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2007-02-01 kell 13:24, kirjutas Gavin Sherry:
A different approach discussed earlier involves greatly restricting the
way in which the table is used. This table could only be written to if an
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A more radical variation of the restricted-use archive table approach
is storing all tuple visibility info in a separate file.
At first it seems to just add overhead, but for lots (most ? ) usecases
the separately stored visibility should be highly
G'day hackers,
I had some hand-wavy thoughts about some potential gains for
postgres in the data archiving/warehousing area. I'm not able
to do any work myself on this, and don't actually have a
pressing need for it so I'm not requesting someone do it, but
I thought it might be worth discussing
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Chris Dunlop wrote:
G'day hackers,
G'Day Chris,
already - I couldn't find anything in the mail archives, but
that doesn't mean it's not there...)
There has been a lot of discussion about this kind of thing over the
years.
The main idea is that, there might be space
G'day Gavin,
In maillist.postgres.dev, you wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Chris Dunlop wrote:
The main idea is that, there might be space utilisation and
performance advantages if postgres had hard read-only
tables, i.e. tables which were guaranteed (by postgres) to
never have their data
10 matches
Mail list logo
