Mike Blackwell <mike.blackwell@xxxxxxx> wrote: > We have a set of large tables. One of the columns is a status indicator > (active / archived). The queries against these tables almost always include > the status, so partitioning against that seems to makes sense from a logical > standpoint, especially given most of the data is "archived" and most of the > processes want active records. > > Is it practical to partition on the status column and, eg, use triggers to move > a row between the two partitions when status is updated? Any surprises to > watch for, given the status column is actually NULL for active data and > contains a value when archived? If i where you, i would try a partial index where status is null. But yes, partitioning is an other option, depends on your workload. Andreas -- Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds) "If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknown) Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889° -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
