From: | Goboxe <hadzramin(dot)ar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Partitioned table limitation |
Date: | 2007-10-01 18:26:20 |
Message-ID: | 1191263180.361101.46010@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Oct 2, 1:38 am, rivers(dot)p(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)gmail(dot)com ("paul rivers") wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgsql-general-ow(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> > ow(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Goboxe
> > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:18 AM
> > To: pgsql-gene(dot)(dot)(dot)(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
>
Thanks Paul for your inputs.
I am not really clear when you said "partitioning by date and id, with
1/4 a year of dates and
approximately 10 IDs". Could you give some examples of your tables?
TQ,
G
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Theodore Galkowski | 2007-10-01 18:35:33 | Re: usage of indexes for inner joins |
Previous Message | S Sharma | 2007-10-01 18:22:16 | Feature Request - Defining default table space for Indexes in Conf file |