|
|
Posted by Piero 'Giops' Giorgi on 06/08/07 16:31
On Jun 7, 2:16 pm, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@sommarskog.se> wrote:
> Piero 'Giops' Giorgi (giorgi.pi...@gmail.com) writes:
>
> > One thing... is there any way to partition the states, too?
> > I mean Query the whole beast with only one SQL Query?
>
> You would query the view.
Yes, that is what I'm doing. It's not the optimal, but it's working
enough.
> One idea to occurred to me is that you could have a mix, so that big
> counties like Orange County(*) have a single partition, where as
> smaller counties and states would be gathered in the same partition.
That would give problems while updating the DB.
Ok, I drop the big ones and update the small ones, but IMHO it would
be better stay with one partition per County, grouped by state.
The BEST thing would be to be able to partition the states (Already
partitioned by County) in one big table.
Possible?
> (*) When I picked Orange County as an example, I did not know that it
> was one of the biggies. I just picked it as it was one of the county
> names I knew; the name appears in a few Zappa tracks.
It's a BIG one!
But you should see New York...
I'm not saying that there are more criminals in NY, but the city is
bigger and there is a lot more people, so...
For now, I'm experimenting with 50 States, partitioned over 3077
Counties. Seems promising, but the UNION query is a resource hog. :-
(
Thank you all!
P
Piero
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|