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 <kleptog@svana.org> 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 > data. > > 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? Cheers, D -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter 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
