On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The real difficulty is that there may be more than one storable value
>> that corresponds to "1.23456" to six decimal digits. To be certain that
>> we can reproduce the stored value unique
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Alban Hertroys
wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2011, at 9:13, Daniel Farina wrote:
>
>>> Setup a materialized view.
>>
>> This rather defeats the point AFAIK, because keeping the materialized
>> view up to date (being more than thirty second
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I think its a pretty common requirement and we should be looking to
> optimize it if it isn't handled well.
I agree; although I wanted to be sure that it is not in fact handled
well by some mechanism I haven't seen yet.
> The only problem is
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Alban Hertroys
wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2011, at 3:23, David Johnston wrote:
>
>>> Does anyone have fresh thoughts or suggestions for dealing with
>>> INSERT-mostly tables conceived in this manner?
>
> You're struggling with read-performance in an INSERT-mostly table? Whe
This is basically exactly the same as
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2008-10/msg9.php; I'm
just asking again, to see if thinking on the problem has changed:
The basic problem, restated, is one has a relation with tuples like this:
(key, recency_stamp, other_columns*)
Some example d
