On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:50:34PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:33:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Martijn van Oosterhout <email@example.com> writes:
> > > Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
> > RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those
> > wheels when perfectly good implementations already exist for us to
> > sit on top of.
> Ok, warning, this is a "you know what would be sweet" moment.
> What would be nice is to be able to detach one of the volumes, and
> know the span of the data in there without being able to access the
> The problem that a lot of warehouse operators have is something like
> this: "We know we have all this data, but we don't know what we will
> want to do with it later. So keep it all. I'll get back to you
> when I want to know something."
> It'd be nice to be able to load up all that data once, and then
> shunt it off into (say) read-only media. If one could then run a
> query that would tell one which spans of data are candidates for the
> search, you could bring back online (onto reasonably fast storage,
> for instance) just the volumes you need to read.
Isn't this one of the big use cases for table partitioning?
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Remember to vote!
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly