Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres -- - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --
Date
Msg-id NOEFLCFHBPDAFHEIPGBOMEKJCEAA.simon@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Data Warehouse Reevaluation - MySQL vs Postgres --  ("Iain" <iain@mst.co.jp>)
List pgsql-performance
> Iain
> Joe's example wasn't excluding partions, as he didn't use a
> predicated UNION
> ALL view to select from. His queries use an indexed column that allow the
> various partitions to be probed at low cost, and he was satisfied
> wth that.

Agreed - very very interesting design though.

> My point in my previous post was that you could still do all that that if
> you wanted to, by building the predicated view with UNION ALL of
> each of the
> child tables.
>

AFAICS of all the designs proposed there is still only one design *using
current PostgreSQL* that allows partitions to be excluded from queries as a
way of speeding up queries against very large tables: UNION ALL with
appended constants.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Large # of rows in query extremely slow, not using
Next
From: Manfred Koizar
Date:
Subject: Re: Large # of rows in query extremely slow, not using