Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > "Read-only" isn't an isolated case. Often you find many read-only tables > alongside rapidly changing tables. So even the busiest of databases can > benefit from read-only optimisations. > Having changes to those tables cause much heavier additional work is OK, > if judged on a cost/benefit basis. So the case I care about ought to be > called "read-mostly" but we're talking write:read ratios of millions:1. We have tables which are frequently JOINed to other tables in complex SELECT statements, but which are only modified as part of a software release. It would be OK with us if switching between modifiable or not actually took as much time as, for example, a CLUSTER command if it gave us a performance benefit when used in these complex queries when in read-only mode. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
