Juan Pereira wrote: > Craig Ringer wrote: > > > >> You're almost always better off using a single table with a composite > >> primary key like (truckid, datapointid) or whatever. If you'll be doing > >> lots of queries that focus on individual vehicles and expect performance > >> issues then you could partition the table by truckid, so you actually do > >> land up with one table per truck, but transparently accessible via table > >> inheritance so you can still query them all together. > > Quite interesting! > > The main reason why we thought using a table per truck was because > concurrent load: if there are 100 trucks trying to write in the same table, > maybe the performance is worse than having 100 tables, due to the fact that > the table is blocked for other queries while the writing process is running, > isn't it? Wow, you are carrying around a lot of MySQL baggage with you. ;-) You should probably read this: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/mvcc-intro.html -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
