I am considering whether or not to partition a few tables in our system. The guide lines I read said that this could help when the size of a table exceeds the amount of system memory. I'm wondering if this statement should be table or database. The way our system operates is that each individual location is actually a separate operation owned by another party. In most cases the data from one location should not be seen by others. There are several tables which are global in nature which hold mainly lookup information, but the actual processing tables are by location. I am wondering if partitioning would be a good way to isolate the information for each location. Each database would be created by location number. Out db servers is a dual quad Intel with 4 Gigs of RAM running Windows 2000 Enterprise Server. All Client machines are running Quad core servers with 8-16 gig of RAM partitioned using Windows 2003 and accessed by Citrix. The total size of our database with 5 years worth of data is about 3.4 gig. In the business we are in, we open about 5-7 new locations each year and close 2-3. I was also thinking that if each partition was by location it would be easier to disconnect the partion tables to use for historial use when we close a location. We probably would get 10 or so queries on the closed locations 6 months after closing. Does this seem like an appropriate use of table partitioning? Best Regards -- Michael Gould, Managing Partner Intermodal Software Solutions, LLC 904.226.0978 904.592.5250 fax -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
