Puneet I'd wonder if a view can do it off multiple tables ? Having said that, you might want to check the archives for inheritance. I recall someone ?Leo? mentioning something similar when I was talking about keeping an archive table without the current data, but being able to look up data from both as a way of dealing with Change of Support issues. I think you can have an inherited table with no data inheriting from a number of tables. You can stop the query searching all tables by having constraints on them - maybe they could reflect bounding boxes?
cheers Ben On 06/04/2010, at 22:33 , P Kishor wrote: > I asked this question yesterday, and received a very helpful pointer > from Ben Madin re. TABLESPACES. As noted in my reply in that thread, I > am also investigating the possibility of splitting a single table > across multiple disks. > > However, I am going to post this question in a different way in this new > thread. > > Suppose I have a table FOO0 that stores info about every state in the > union. I know that some of these states will have mongo number of > rows, but I don't have to build all the states immediately. So, I > start with a few states' worth data, putting it in the default > /usr/local/pgsql/data location. > > Then I start outgrowing that disk, and need to add another state, so I > add another disk, create a new tablespace, and create a new table > called FOO1 in this new tablespace. Then I can store the new states in > FOO1. As long as I break up my table into FOO0, FOO1, FOO2, and so on, > I can store each FOOn in a new tablespace. And, as long as I ensure > that each FOOn table contains a geographically consistent spatial > extent, I can build logic in my application to query the correct > table. > > So, lets say 0 lon to -10 lon data are stored in FOO0, and -10 lon to > -20 lon in FOO1, then if the user requests data for -5 lon to -15 lon, > I will have to query both FOO0 and FOO1. > > More work for me, but it is doable, no? Any insights on how to handle > something like this? > > A corollary question -- are their any speed advantages to actually > creating multiple PostGIS instances, perhaps even splitting them > across multiple machines? Of course, it is going to be a pain in the > ass for me to maintain more than one instance of PostGres/PostGIS, so > I am not thrilled at that possibility. I'd rather have a single > instance just be managing data across multiple locations as required. > > > -- > Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org > Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org > Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org > Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor > Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science > ======================================================================= > _______________________________________________ > postgis-users mailing list > postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users _______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
