Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2007-12-11 kell 13:44, kirjutas Csaba Nagy: > On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 11:12 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Features > > - Read Only Tables > > - Compressed Tablespaces > > I wonder if instead of read-only tables wouldn't it be better to have > some kind of automatic partitioning which permits to have different > chunks of the table data in different tablespaces, and a freeze command > which effectively moves the data from the (normally small) active chunk > to the archive chunk when it's transaction id is older than a predefined > threshold ?
This would be doable using Simons proposed commands. > Then put the active chunk on a high performance file system and the > archive tablespace on a compressed/slow/cheap file system and you're > done. Allow even the archive chunk to be updateable, and put new tuple > data in the active chunk. It would work just fine for cases where the > old data is rarely updated/deleted... You can't update a table on a read-only (write-once) partition, at least not with current header structure. > Another advantage I guess would be that active data would more likely > stay in cache, as updated records would stay together and not spread > over the inactive. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
