Hi, Am 13.01.2010 09:16, schrieb Yan Cheng Cheok:
I realize the READ performance goes down dramatically when my table goes large. Every new day goes on, my table can increase x millions of new rows.I was wondering whether this is good practice I can design my database in this way? Instead of having lot<-> unit<-> measurement Can I have lot-March-2010<-> unit-March-2010<-> measurement-March-2010 lot-April-2010<-> unit-April-2010<-> measurement-April-2010 (1) That's mean in my stored procedure, I need to dynamically generate the table name. Is this the "dynamic SQL" to correct way, to dynamically generate table name : http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/ecpg-dynamic.html (2) Is this consider a good approach, to overcome speed problem (especially read speed). Any potential problem I should put an eye on, before I implement this strategy?
You might combine this approach with table partitioning to give you a cleaner view to your data like this: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/ddl-partitioning.html in your situation it would probably make sense to put the actual partitiones into a separate schema to keep your main work area clean from clutter. HTH Tino
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
