From: | "paul rivers" <rivers(dot)paul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Goboxe'" <hadzramin(dot)ar(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Partitioned table limitation |
Date: | 2007-10-01 17:38:30 |
Message-ID: | 004c01c80451$e2b601a0$6301a8c0@parzifal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Goboxe
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:18 AM
> To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: [GENERAL] Partitioned table limitation
>
> Hi,
>
> Are there any limitations on number of child tables that can be use
> in
> partitioned table?
>
> [snip]
We currently use partitioning by date and id, with 1/4 a year of dates and
approximately 10 IDs (and slowly increasing). Each partition runs from
around 1 million to 20 million rows.
Whether it's recommended or not, I don't know. But for us, the partitioning
works exactly as advertised. As with anything new, I'd take the time to
setup a simple test to see if it works for you, too.
In particular, be sure to check the documentation on caveats. You'll find
these a little stricter than partitioning issues in Oracle or SQL Server.
HTH,
Paul
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alan Hodgson | 2007-10-01 17:42:25 | Re: Upgrading PG |
Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2007-10-01 17:34:32 | Re: more problems with count(*) on large table |