On 20 March 2012 22:25, Andy Colson <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think the decisions: > > 1) one big table > 2) one big partitioned table > 3) many little tables > > would probably depend on how you want to read the data. Writing would be > very similar. > > I tried to read through the thread but didnt see how you're going to read. > > I have apache logs in a database. Single table, about 18 million rows. I > have an index on hittime (its a timestamp), and I can pull a few hundred > records based on a time, very fast. On the other hand, a count(*) on the > entire table takes a while. If you are going to hit lots and lots of > records, I think the multi-table (which include partitioning) would be > faster. If you can pull out records based on index, and be very selective, > then one big table works fine. > On the perl side, use copy. I have code in perl that uses it (and reads > from .gz as well), and its very fast. I can post some if you'd like. my queries would mostly consider select for one symbol for one particular day or a few hours in a particular day, occasionally I would do select on multiple symbols for some timestamp range. you code sample would be appreciated, Thanks! Jim. > > -Andy > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
