Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Probably by carefully partitioning their data. I can't imagine anything being fast on a single table in 250,000,000 tuple range. Nor can I really imagine any database that efficiently splits a single table across multiple machines (or even inefficiently unless some internal partitioning is being done).
Ah, what about partial indexes - those might help. As a kind of 'semi-partition'.
He could also you schemas to partition out the information within the same database.
J
Chris
-- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
begin:vcard fn:Joshua Drake n:Drake;Joshua org:Command Prompt, Inc. adr:;;PO Box 215 ;Cascade Locks;OR;97014;US email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Consultant tel;work:503-667-4564 tel;fax:503-210-0334 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.commandprompt.com version:2.1 end:vcard
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
