| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike C <smith(dot)not(dot)western(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Table Partitions / Partial Indexes |
| Date: | 2005-12-13 23:17:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1134515825.27873.122.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 15:07 +1300, Mike C wrote:
> Partitioning on date range doesn't make much sense for this setup,
> where a typical 1-month query spans both tables (as the billing month
> for the customer might start midway through a calendar month).
Maybe not for queries, but if you use a date range then you never need
to run a DELETE and never need to VACUUM.
You could split the data into two-day chunks.
> Am I using a horrid method for partitioning the data? (% 10)
No, but what benefit do you think it provides. I'm not sure I see...
> Should there be that big of an improvement for multiple tables given
> that all the data is still stored on the same filesystem?
You could store partitions in separate tablespaces/filesystems.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomeh, Husam | 2005-12-13 23:18:35 | Re: Should Oracle outperform PostgreSQL on a complex |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-12-13 22:48:02 | Re: query from partitions |