* Janet Jacobsen (jsjacobsen@xxxxxxx) wrote: > If they are going to spend 95% of their time querying the > records that meet the 'good' criteria, what are the good > strategies for ensuring good performance for those queries? > (1) Should I partition the table into two partitions based on > the value of rbscore? > (2) Should I create two separate tables? > > Are (1) and (2) more or less equivalent in terms of > performance? It's not clear to me what you plan here.. How would you handle (2) for the users? Would you construct a view across them, or expect them to query the right table(s)? Options, as I see them, and in the order of 'best-to-worst' wrt user friendlyness and performance, I believe, are: 1- Partitioning (with CHECK constraints and constraint_exclusion) 2- View across two tables (with appropriate WHERE clauses) 3- Functional index (as suggested by someone else) 4- separate tables (users have to figure out how to use them) 5- single table with everything My recommendation would be #1, followed by #2. Be sure to look up how to do partitioning by using inheiritance in PG, and, if you need to, look at how to implement a trigger to handle inserts on the parent table. Make sure you create your CHECK() constraints correctly, and that you have constraint_exclusion enabled, and that it *works*. > I think that partitioning the table is a more flexible option > (i.e., what if the cutoff value changes, no need to change > the name of the table being queried, etc.), but would (2) > give better performance given that 95% of their queries > are for rbscores greater than a threshold value? If you have your partitioning set up correctly, I don't believe having actual separate tables would be that much of a performance gain for queries. It would help some with inserts, tho if you know which table to insert into, you could just insert into that child rather than the main and using a trigger. Enjoy, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
